Garcia v. Grimm, et al

Filing 186

ORDER: The (Doc. 171 ) Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia is denied. Plaintiff may file any motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum regarding Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, or David Cano by 10/12/2011. Plaintiff shall file a sworn affidavit establishing the appropriateness of the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to each witness. Defendants may respond to the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by 11/7/2011. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/21/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FILIPE NOE GARCIA,

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

12

ORDER

14

Plaintiff,
vs.
JG GRIMM; SGT HIGHTOWER;
RHINELANDER; SETTER; SWINEY; J.
MACLEOD,

15

Defendants.

13

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

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum
(ECF No. 171) filed by Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia.
BACKGROUND
The Court previously ordered:
Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Proposed Pretrial Order which lists
a brief description of the facts which support each of the remaining
claims listed above on which Plaintiff intends to proceed to trial and
identifies witnesses in support of each claim. Plaintiff shall number
each claim and allege each claim in a separate paragraph. Plaintiff
shall also file a motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for
any inmate witnesses listed in the Third Amended Proposed Pretrial
Order. In addition, Plaintiff shall file a sworn affidavit establishing the
appropriateness of the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad
testificandum as to each witness. The sworn affidavit shall state: (1)
what each inmate witness will testify to; (2) how Plaintiff knows what
the inmate witness will testify to; and (3) why the testimony is
necessary. See Greene v. Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal.
1996) (“In order to grant the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, the
-1-

06cv225 WQH (PCL)

1
2
3

Court must determine not only whether an inmate-witness’s testimony
is relevant, but also, whether such testimony is necessary. This
determination depends ultimately upon whether the probative value of
the testimony justifies the expense and security risk associated with
transporting an inmate-witness to court form a correctional facility.”).

4

(ECF No. 169 at 19). Plaintiff submitted his Motion for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad

5

Testificandum for himself, Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, David Cano,

6

Francisco Flores, David Flores, Francisco Gongora, Geraldo Ojito, Michael Colon, Christopher

7

Macits, Ricardo Magana, Robert Gomez, Alberto Hernandez, Juan Torres, Ronnie Monie, and

8

Mark Winston.

9

Plaintiff states that Julio Contreras observed the altercation between Plaintiff and

10

Defendants and has provided a “voluntary affidavit and stated that he would truthfully testify.”

11

(ECF No. 171 at 5). Plaintiff states that Rodney Brooks observed the altercation between

12

Plaintiff and Defendants, observed the “placement of handcuffs and ankle restraints, the

13

dragging and clothes being ripped off, the continued assault outside the module, the fact that

14

the module door closed before plaintiff reached it, the threats by inmate Martin if anyone spoke

15

to investigators ...” and has “voluntarily stated he would truthfully testify to what he observed

16

and his knowledge about this incident.” Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff states that Robert Martin “will

17

testify how he was illegally used to try to persuade Plaintiff to lock up, how he was pushed in

18

when Plaintiff started to run toward the door, how all the deputy sheriffs ran out, how the door

19

closed and Plaintiff stood in front of the door..., that on advice from his attorney he did not file

20

a civil case in exchange for leniency in his criminal case sentencing, and the threats he issued

21

to all housed there and his continued involvement in prison gang activity.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff

22

states that David Cano who “will testify” that he was Plaintiff's cell mate, that “because of his

23

involvement and Mr. Marin's orders he was brutally assaulted, and he observed Plaintiff get

24

brutally assaulted, dragged outside the module and he was within 5 feet of the incident.” Id.

25

Plaintiff states that inmates Francisco Flores, David Flores, Francisco Gongora, Geraldo Ojito,

26

Michael Colon, Christopher Macits, Ricardo Magana, Robert Gomez, Alberto Hernandez, Juan

27

Torres, Ronnie Monie, and Mark Winston were all housed in cells within the module and “they

28

will testify on what they heard and saw out of their windows ... [and] the fact that Inmate
-2-

06cv225 WQH (PCL)

1

Marin issued threats to who would talk to investigators ....” Id. at 7.

2

Defendants “do not object to the issuance of a habeas writ for Contreras so long as

3

Garcia waives any objection to defense counsel interviewing Contreras regarding his written

4

statement and observations prior to providing in-court testimony and the Court grants

5

Defendants’ petition for a writ of habeas ad testificandum for Michael Colon, who will rebut

6

Contreras’s written statement and anticipated oral testimony.”

7

Defendants object to the issuance of a writ of habeas ad testificandum for inmate Brooks on

8

the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to supply factual support for his request including stating

9

what Brooks will testify to and why the testimony is necessary. Defendants explain that

10

Plaintiff has previously identified Inmates Marin, Cano, F.Flores, D. Flores, Gongora, Ojito,

11

Colon, Macias, Magana, Gomez, Hernandez, Torres, Monie, and Winston as “involuntary

12

witnesses who will refuse to testify unless this Court ordered them to testify as to what they

13

observed and require them to state why they were kicking, banging and yelling out their cell

14

doors while Defendants were beating up on Plaintiff.” Id. (citing ECF No. 146).

15

(ECF No. 179 at 2).

STANDARD

16

In ruling on a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, the Court must

17

balance the relevance and necessity of the testimony against the security risks involved in

18

having the witnesses transported to the Court to testify during trial. See Greene v. K.W.

19

Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (holding “[i]n order to grant the writ of habeas

20

corpus ad testificandum the Court must determine not only whether an inmate-witness'

21

testimony is relevant, but also, whether such testimony is necessary. This determination

22

depends ultimately upon whether the probative value of the testimony justifies the expense and

23

security risk associated with transporting an inmate-witness to court from a correctional

24

facility.”). “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence

25

of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

26

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “All relevant evidence

27

is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act

28

of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to
-3-

06cv225 WQH (PCL)

1

statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.
DISCUSSION

2
3

The Court finds that testimony by Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, and

4

David Cano, who were each eye-witnesses to the incident, may be relevant to this lawsuit.

5

Plaintiff does not have access to the witnesses. The Court cannot determine on this record

6

whether the value of Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, or David Cano’s

7

testimony justifies the expense and security risk associated with transporting the inmate-

8

witness to court from a correctional facility. See Greene v. K.W. Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639

9

(S.D. Cal. 1996). The Court orders Defendants to take a telephonic deposition of Julio

10

Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, and David Cano, if they are currently incarcerated.

11

Defendants shall pay the costs associated with the depositions. Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of

12

Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is denied with leave to renew after the depositions are

13

completed.

14

Plaintiff has failed to make even a minimal showing that testimony by inmates

15

Francisco Flores, David Flores, Francisco Gongora, Geraldo Ojito, Michael Colon, Christopher

16

Macits, Ricardo Magana, Robert Gomez, Alberto Hernandez, Juan Torres, Ronnie Monie, and

17

Mark Winston is relevant and necessary in this case. During oral argument, Plaintiff requested

18

leave to submit additional information regarding inmate Geraldo Ojito. Plaintiff may file a

19

motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum regarding inmate Geraldo Ojito by July 5,

20

2011. Defendants may respond by July 25, 2011.

21
22

CONCLUSION
The Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (ECF No. 171) filed by

23

Plaintiff Filipe Noe Garcia is DENIED.

Defendants shall arrange for the telephonic

24

depositions of Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks, Robert Marin, and David Cano, if they are

25

currently incarcerated, to be completed by no later than August 8, 2011. Defendants shall

26

provide transcripts of the depositions to Plaintiff by September 12, 2011. Plaintiff may file any

27

motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum regarding Julio Contreras, Rodney Brooks,

28

Robert Marin, or David Cano by October 12, 2011. Plaintiff shall file a sworn affidavit
-4-

06cv225 WQH (PCL)

1

establishing the appropriateness of the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as

2

to each witness. The sworn affidavit shall state: (1) what each inmate witness will testify to;

3

(2) how Plaintiff knows what the inmate witness will testify to; and (3) why the testimony is

4

necessary. See Greene v. Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (“In order to grant

5

the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, the Court must determine not only whether an

6

inmate-witness's testimony is relevant, but also, whether such testimony is necessary. This

7

determination depends ultimately upon whether the probative value of the testimony justifies

8

the expense and security risk associated with transporting an inmate-witness to court form a

9

correctional facility.”). Defendants may respond to the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad

10

testificandum by November 7, 2011.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: June 21, 2011

13
14

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

06cv225 WQH (PCL)