Hammler v. Haas, et al.

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/25/20 ORDERING defendants shall file and serve any further opposition to plaintiffs pending motions onor before Friday, March 6, 2020. Plaintiff shall file and serve (submit to prison officials f or mailing) his reply to Louies opposition on or before Friday, March 13, 2020. Plaintiff shall not respond to any other matters filed by defendants unless ordered by this court. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, together with a copy of this order: (1) a copy of this courts Discovery and Scheduling Order filed August 11, 2017 33 , and (2) a copy of Louies opposition filed February 24, 2020 89 . A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum shall issue contemporaneously with this order to provide for plaintiffs presence at trial.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2266 JAM AC P

v.

ORDER

HAAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights case against defendant

17
18

correctional officers Louie and Haas on claims they failed to protect plaintiff from assault by

19

other inmates on March 16, 2015, at High Desert State Prison. Trial commences in this case on

20

April 20, 2020, before the Honorable John A. Mendez. The Pretrial Order issued on June 4,

21

2019. ECF No. 85.

22

Presently pending are two motions filed by plaintiff on February 18, 2020: (1) a motion

23

for issuance of writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum to provide for the trial attendance of his

24

incarcerated witnesses, ECF No. 87; and (2) a motion to modify the Pretrial Order to name one

25

additional witness, ECF No. 88.
Defendant Louie has filed an opposition to plaintiff’s first motion. ECF No. 89. Due to

26
27

the approaching trial date, any further opposition to either of plaintiff’s motions shall be filed and

28

////
1

1

served on or before Friday, March 6, 2020 (rather than the deadline set forth by Local Rule

2

230(l)).

3

Meanwhile, plaintiff will be required to prepare, file and serve a response that addresses,

4

for each of his proposed witnesses, the concerns raised by defendant Louie. Plaintiff’s reply to

5

Louie’s opposition must be submitted to prison officials for mailing no later than Friday, March

6

13, 2020. Plaintiff shall not respond to any other matters filed by defendants unless ordered by

7

the court.

8

Plaintiff is informed that this court can issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum only

9

for presently incarcerated individuals who are identifiable by inmate number and whose place of

10

incarceration is known. Review of CDCR’s Inmate Locator1 demonstrates that two of plaintiff’s

11

identified witnesses, Anthony Mitchell and [First Name Unknown] Reid, are not listed under the

12

inmate numbers provided by plaintiff. The Inmate Locator includes several individuals with the

13

same names, but none have inmate numbers close to those provided. Plaintiff did not provide an

14

inmate number for a third witness, Cory Mitchell, and his name does not appear in the Inmate

15

Locator. Further, CDCR’s Inmate Locator presently lists two of plaintiff’s witnesses, Abraham

16

Deashawn Adams and Dannell Lee Richard, as Out to Hospital.

17

As a result, at present, only six of plaintiff’s witnesses are presently available to testify at

18

trial: Kenneth Patterson CDCR # AB6602 (CSP-SAC), Robert Santoro CDCR # T40346

19

(KVSP), Larry Alford CDCR # AU8727 (CSP-SAC), Kenyon Lee McClelland CDCR # T19229

20

(CSP-LAC), Easter Burnett CDCR # V35245 (CMF), and Ramon Guillermo Morales-Smith

21

CDCR # F21867 (CSP-SAC). Therefore, plaintiff’s reply to defendant Louie’s opposition should

22

focus primarily on these potential witnesses. Additionally, plaintiff should inform the court by

23

affidavit whether or not his proposed new witness, Timothy Bradford Cole, CDCR #V18610

24

(CSP-COR), has agreed to testify voluntarily.

25
26
27
28

1

See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are
capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir.
2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable
dispute.”).
2

1

A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue contemporaneously with this order to

2

provide for plaintiff’s presence at trial. Ruling on plaintiff’s other requested writs will follow the

3

briefing here ordered.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Defendants shall file and serve any further opposition to plaintiff’s pending motions on

6
7

or before Friday, March 6, 2020.
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve (submit to prison officials for mailing) his reply to Louie’s

8

opposition on or before Friday, March 13, 2020. Plaintiff shall not respond to any other matters

9

filed by defendants unless ordered by this court.

10

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, together with a copy of this order: (1)

11

a copy of this court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order filed August 11, 2017 (ECF No. 33), and

12

(2) a copy of Louie’s opposition filed February 24, 2020 (ECF No. 89).

13
14
15
16

4. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum shall issue contemporaneously with this order
to provide for plaintiff’s presence at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 25, 2020

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3