King v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 143

ORDER denying 141 Motion to resolved various issues concerning trial signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/30/10. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) King v. California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 143 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 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, / Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's second motion to resolve issues concerning his upcoming trial. (Doc. 141.) Specifically, plaintiff contests the undersigned's ruling on September 10, 2010 that he may not designate an additional trial witness, Don Tooks, because his attempt to add this witness is untimely pursuant to the pretrial order. (Doc. 140.) Initially, plaintiff stated that Tooks "signed a sworn deposition at High Desert state prison and told plaintiff what he saw" concerning plaintiff's instant allegations, and that plaintiff attached this deposition to the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 139.) In fact, attached to the Second Amended Complaint is a sworn declaration by Don Tooks and Lorenzo Ruffin, signed and dated by Tooks on September 14, 2005. (Doc. 12 at 61-63.) Plaintiff now 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN KING, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV S-06-0065 LKK GGH P ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 claims that he "discovered the long lost witness on or about August 8 or 9th 2010 . . . 11 days after the pretrial conference." Even if plaintiff recently located Tooks after losing track of his whereabouts, it does not affect the outcome under the rules regarding untimely witnesses as set forth in the pretrial order.1 Plaintiff is advised that the undersigned will not revisit or revise its September 10, 2010 decision in this matter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's second motion to resolve various issues concerning trial (Doc. 141) is denied. DATED: September 30, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GGH0014 king0065.trial2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 For one thing, plaintiff has made no showing that he would call Tooks "for the demonstrated purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial conference," as required by the pretrial order. (Doc. 128.) 2 1

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?