Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Subpoena and Witness List by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/20/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00749-RM-BNB
JEREMY PINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
ANTHONY OSAGIE,
DAVID ALLRED,
CHRISTOPHER WILSON,
LISA GREGORY,
DAVID BERKEBILE, and
D. HALL,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena and Witness List [Doc. #56,
filed 12/02/2013]. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The plaintiff is incarcerated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the United
States Prison, Administrative Maximum, in Florence, Colorado (“ADX”). He filed his First
Amended Prisoner Complaint on April 8, 2013 [Doc. #6] (the “Amended Complaint”). The
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and has been assessed
three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

1

The plaintiff’s abusive filing history is addressed in Civil Action No. 13-cv-01384-RMBNB, Document #5, and is obvious from Attachment A to the Complaint in that case [Doc. #1,
pp. 9-14] which lists approximately 125 previous cases filed by the plaintiff.

Section 1915(g) provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
The plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case [Doc. #15]
based on allegations that chemical agents had been deployed in close proximity to him and he
was denied medical attention after indirect exposure to the chemicals. On July 1, 2013, he filed
a motion for injunctive relief alleging that defendant Berkebile has continued to use chemical
agents [Doc. #16]. He filed a supplemental motion on July 17, 2013, alleging that chemical
agents were deployed near him on July 14, 2013, which triggered an asthma attack and caused
him to collapse [Doc. #20]. I set the matter for a hearing [Doc. #51] on January 22, 2014.
The plaintiff requests that the court require the BOP to make available at the hearing six
inmates who will testify that they were present “during each incident where chemical agents
were deployed, each witnessed the defendants refuse to remove plaintiff from the contaminated
area and then did nothing once plaintiff lost consciousness, and finally that each of them suffered
respiratory complications from the same chemical agents.” Allowing the same testimony from
six inmates would be cumulative. The plaintiff may identify one inmate to provide the
testimony. The plaintiff shall notify the BOP in writing regarding which inmate he has identified
to testify at the hearing, and he shall file with the court a copy of the notification. The BOP shall
make the inmate available to testify (via video) at the hearing.
The plaintiff also requests that Nurse Andreis be made available to testify. The
2

defendants do not object to that request. The BOP shall make Nurse Andreis available to testify
at the hearing either in person or by video.
Finally, the plaintiff requests that “a video recording of his collapse and loss of
consciousness on July 14, 2013, following deployment of chemical agents” be made available at
the hearing. The defendants state that the BOP has a video of “the medical intervention for
Plaintiff after staff found him unresponsive in his cell on July 14, 2013.” The BOP shall make
the video available to the plaintiff for viewing no less that one week prior to the hearing. The
BOP shall also make the video available to defense counsel who shall bring it to the hearing on
January 22, 2014, for possible viewing by the court. Defense counsel shall contact the court’s IT
department prior to the hearing to ensure that the proper equipment will be available to display
the video.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena and Witness List [Doc. #56] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as specified.
Dated December 20, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3