Denton v. Pastor et al

Filing 232

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 228 Motion for Reconsideration of the 223 Order denying without prejudice the motion to allow Michelle Walker to testify at trial and other motions. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan.**4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Michael Denton, Prisoner ID: 898610)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 16-5314 RJB

MICHAEL DENTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. CHARLA JAMES-HUTCHISON,
SGT. JACKIE CARUSO,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO ALLOW MICHELLE
WALKER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL
AND OTHER MOTIONS

16
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on “Plaintiff [sic] Response/Objections to Order
17
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Michelle Walker to Testify at Trail” (Dkt. 223), which the
18
Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 228. The Court has considered the
19
pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining record.
20
On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff, a prisoner acting pro se, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
21
§ 1983. Dkts. 1 and 4. This case is set to begin trial on October 29, 2018 on the Plaintiff’s claim
22
that, while he was a pre-trial detainee in the Pierce County, Washington jail, Defendants
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO ALLOW MICHELLE WALKER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND OTHER MOTIONS
-1

1

Lieutenant Charla James-Hutchinson and Sergeant Jackie Caruso violated his due process rights

2

when they revoked his good time credits. Dkt. 99.

3

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to allow Disciplinary Hearings Program

4

Manager Michelle Walker to testify at the trial. Dkt. 215. The motion was noted for

5

consideration on Friday, August 3, 2018.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

On August 7, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Dkt. 223.
That order provided:
At this stage, Plaintiff’s proffered evidence is not relevant. The Supreme
Court has held that where, as here, an inmate has a protected liberty interest in
good time credits, due process requires that, before and at the disciplinary
hearing, the inmate “receive: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary
charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and
correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his
defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and
the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Superintendent, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution, Wapole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (2001)(internal
citation omitted). In the Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation, this
Court held that the Defendants met the first and third requirements. Dkt. 166.
There are issues of fact as to the second requirement only: whether Plaintiff was
given an opportunity to call witnesses. The Defendants assert that they gave him
the opportunity and Plaintiff maintains they did not. Ms. Walker’s testimony
regarding the practices, policies and procedures at the state Department of
Corrections is not relevant to the issue whether the Pierce County, Washington
Jail employees did or did not give Plaintiff an opportunity to call witnesses. At
this point, Plaintiff has not made a showing that this evidence is relevant to the
issues at trial, and so should be excluded under Fed. Evid. R. 401 and 402.
Moreover, the testimony that Plaintiff seeks to elicit regarding the
practices, policies, and procedures at the state prisons would, at least in part,
present cumulative evidence. The Defendants acknowledge that they had to
provide him notice of the charges and a statement of reasons after the hearing.
Further testimony that they had those obligations would be unnecessarily
cumulative and should be excluded under Fed. Evid. R. 403.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Disciplinary Hearings Program
Administrator Michelle Walker to Testify at Trial (Dkt. 215) should be denied
without prejudice.

22
Dkt. 223.
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO ALLOW MICHELLE WALKER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND OTHER MOTIONS
-2

1

Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s motion is dated August 31, 2018 and was filed

2

September 13, 2018. Dkt. 228. Plaintiff’s motion notes that on the day the order at issue was

3

filed, August 7, 2018, he was moved from the Washington Corrections Center to the Washington

4

State Penitentiary. Id. He notes that he filed a motion for extension of all deadlines due in

5

August. Id. (His motion for an extension of time was filed on August 10, 2018. Dkt. 224. It

6

was granted on September 4, 2018. Dkt. 224. The due date for Plaintiff’s responsive pleadings,

7

if any, were extended to September 10, 2018. Dkt. 224.) He states in the instant motion for

8

reconsideration that “mail is still catching up” to him. Dkt. 228.

9

Plaintiff further asserts that the Court improperly identified Ms. Walker as an employee

10

of the Washington State Penitentiary. Dkt. 228. He maintains that she works at the Department

11

of Corrections headquarters in Olympia. Id. Plaintiff again asserts that Ms. Walker is an expert

12

on the proper process prisoners are due at disciplinary hearings in the state corrections system

13

and should be allowed to testify. Id. He argues that the Court erred in denying her testimony.

14

Standard on Motion for Reconsideration. Under Local Rule W.D. Washington 7

15

(h)(2), a motion for reconsideration shall be filed “within fourteen days after the order to which it

16

relates.” Moreover, “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rule 7 (h)(1). The rule

17

further provides that “[t]he court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing

18

of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not

19

have been brought to its attention earlier.” Id.

20

Decision on Motion. Although it is untimely, in light of the order extending deadlines

21

(Dkt. 224), the Court will not deny the motion on that basis. Plaintiff’s motion for

22

reconsideration (Dkt. 228) should be denied. Plaintiff fails to make a “showing of manifest error

23

in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO ALLOW MICHELLE WALKER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND OTHER MOTIONS
-3

1

brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier.” Local Rule 7 (h)(1). Whether Ms. Walker is

2

employed at the state headquarters or in one of the state run facilities is immaterial. The prior

3

order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion to allow the testimony of Ms. Walker (Dkt.

4

223) should be affirmed and the reasoning therein is adopted. Further, as stated in the Court’s

5

Order on Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, “[t]he The Court will instruct the jury on the Plaintiff’s

6

due process rights.” Dkt. 227. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 228) should be

7

denied.

8

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:

9
10

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying, Without Prejudice,

11

Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Disciplinary Hearings Program Administrator Michelle

12

Walker to Testify at Trial (Dkt. 228) IS DENIED.

13

The Clerk is further directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

14
15
16
17
18

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 24th day of September, 2018.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO ALLOW MICHELLE WALKER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND OTHER MOTIONS
-4