(PC) Antonio Gutierrez v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 151

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 150 Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 07/09/2024. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 M. SANDOVAL, 16 (ECF No. 150) 17 19 Plaintiff Antonio Gutierrez, Jr. is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently an inmate confined at California Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California. 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES Defendant. 15 18 Case No. 1:20-cv-01130-JLT-EPG On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion titled Motion for the Appearance of Incarcerated Witnesses. (ECF No. 150).1 In this motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court direct the CTF Warden to produce Plaintiff at trial and that Plaintiff “be presented in neat, civilian clothing—not prison garb—and to be unshackled during the trial.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff does not request the attendance of any other incarcerated witness at trial other than himself. 25 26 27 While the Court’s Scheduling Order allows Defendant to file opposition on or before July 26, 2024 (ECF No. 126 at 3), Plaintiff indicated that Defendant does not oppose this motion (ECF No. 150-1 at 2). 1 28 1 1 The Court will grant the motion insofar as it requests an order requiring the Warden to 2 produce Plaintiff for trial. While Plaintiff does not have an absolute right to attend trial, it is the 3 general practice of courts in the Eastern District of California to permit prisoners to personally 4 attend trial in their civil rights cases. See Navarro v. Herndon, No. 2:09-CV-1878 KJM KJN, 5 2015 WL 2128601, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2015). The Court usually enters a writ of habeas 6 7 8 9 corpus ad testificandum about a month prior to trial without the need for Plaintiff to file a motion on his own behalf. See, e.g., Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Plaintiff for Trial, ECF No. 116, Bush v. Santoro, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00015-JLT-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024); Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Plaintiff for Trial, ECF No. 129, Hammler v. Gooch, et al., No. 19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 10 2024). The Court does not normally issue writs further in advance than four to six weeks before 11 12 13 14 the trial because incarcerated plaintiffs or witnesses may be transferred or released from custody. Since the jury trial in this case is set for more than three months from now, on October 29, 2024, the Court will issue the writ for attendance approximately one month before that date. No further request from Plaintiff is needed. 15 As to Plaintiff’s request to appear in civilian clothes and unshackled, the Court will deny 16 that request without prejudice. Plaintiff may raise the request at the pretrial conference and/or in 17 pretrial motions before the District Judge. 18 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses (ECF No. 150) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 9, 2024 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?