Drake v. White, et. al.

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/06/10 ordering plaintiff's 06/15/10 objections 94 will be disregarded for the reasons stated above. Plaintiff's 06/15/10 motion to obtain witness 95 is denied. (Plummer, M) Modified on 7/6/2010 (Plummer, M).

(PC) Drake v. White, et. al.

Doc. 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The court also notes that the non-incarcerated witness is a psychologist who allegedly treated plaintiff at the prison. It's not clear how this witness would be relevant as the instant case involves accusation of excessive force against two guards and the witness is not alleged to have witnessed the incident.
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEAN DRAKE, Plaintiff, vs. MIKE WHITE, et al., Defendants. / On May 27, 2010, the undersigned issued a pretrial order. On June 15, 2010, plaintiff filed objections. In the pretrial order plaintiff was precluded from calling an inmate witness because plaintiff had failed to follow the proper procedures in obtaining an inmate witness at trial. Plaintiff again requests the inmate witness and now, for the first time, requests a non-incarcerated witness. Plaintiff has again failed to follow the procedures for obtaining witnesses to testify at trial. Simply requesting to the undersigned that witnesses testify is insufficient. The court has repeatedly outlined the proper procedures, but plaintiff has failed to follow them. These witnesses will not be permitted to testify at trial.1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's June 15, 2010, objections will be disregarded for the reasons stated ORDER No. CIV S-05-2075 JAM GGH P

1 2 3 4

above; 2. Plaintiff's June 15, 2010, motion to obtain witness (Doc. 95) is denied. DATED: July 6, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
GGH: AB drak2075.ord