Thompson v. Gomez et al

Filing 136

ORDER Directing Plaintiff's Appearance for Trial signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/6/2022. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARK SHANE THOMPSON,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPEARANCE FOR TRIAL

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:18-cv-00125-SAB (PC)

v.
(ECF No. 135)

13
14

A. GOMEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18

On September 30, 2022, the Court directed Defendants to investigate and determine

19 whether Plaintiff is refusing to be transported from California State Prison-Los Angeles County
20 to California State Prison-Corcoran for an in-person appearance at the upcoming jury trial on
21 October 17, 2022. (ECF No. 133.)
22

Defendants filed a response on October 5, 2022. (ECF No. 135.) Defendants submit:

23

Following the issuance of the Court’s order, the Office of the California Attorney General
contacted the LAC litigation coordinator to assist in investigating Plaintiff’s reported
refusal to be transported from LAC to COR for trial. The LAC litigation coordinator
reviewed Plaintiff’s inmate records and retrieved a CDCR Form 128-B general chrono
dated September 28, 2022 documenting Plaintiff’s refusal to be transported to COR for
trial. (See Exhibit A to J. Orellana Decl.) As documented by LAC, they attempted to
transport him per the Court’s Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, but Plaintiff
refused to transport. (Orellana Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit B to J. Orellana Decl.). Thereafter, at the
request of the Office of the California Attorney General, Plaintiff was interviewed

24
25
26
27
28

1

1
2
3
4
5

regarding his reported refusal to be transported for trial by LAC Correctional Counselor
II Supervisor T. Trenda. (See T. Trenda Decl. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff indicated that he was
unwilling to be transported to COR for his trial. (Trenda Decl. ¶ 4). He claimed “mental
health concerns” prevented an overnight stay at COR for trial and stated he would only
be willing to appear at trial in person if he were to be daily transported back and forth to
the Fresno federal courthouse from LAC. (Id. at ¶ 4.) However, transporting Plaintiff to
and from the Fresno federal courthouse with overnight stays at LAC is not feasible due to
the distance between LAC and Fresno1. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

6 (ECF No. 135.)
7

As this case is currently set for jury trial on October 17, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED to

8 be present at California State Prison-Corcoran on or before October 14, 2022, in order to
9 logistically proceed with the trial. If Plaintiff refuses to be transported to California State Prison10 Corcoran on or before October 14, 2022, this case will be dismissed, with prejudice. Local Rule
11 110. If the Plaintiff refuses, then the defendants shall submit evidence of his refusal, including a
12 declaration from the official that the Plaintiff is refusing to be transported for his trial.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated:

October 6, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2