Howard v. Holm et al

Filing 50

Order that Plaintiff has until 4/12/2010 to identify two prisoners to testify. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/26/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF W I S C O N S I N

DERRICK HOW A R D , P la i n ti ff, v. ORDER 0 9 -cv -7 5 -slc

JE F F SUPRENAND, J. KEYS and J. KITZMAN, D e fe n d a n t s .

P l a i n t if f Derrick Howard is proceeding pro se on claims that defendants Jeff Suprenand, J. Keys a n d J. Kitzm a n violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by exhibiting deliberate indifference to a serious risk that plaintiff would harm himself. A trial is scheduled for June 14, 2010. Plaintiff has filed a petition for three writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum for proposed prisoner witnesses who have p e r s o n a l knowledge of events relevant to his case: M i c h a e l Love, Kenneth Ingersoll and John M a c k . H o w e v e r , plaintiff does not distinguish between the testimony that the prisoners will give; he provides the s a m e summary for all three prisoners. Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, a court may exclude evidence, even when i t is relevant, if it is cumulative. This rule has even greater weight in the context of a petition for a writ o f habeas corpus ad testificandum, which requires a court to balance the importance of the testimony a g a i n s t the security and administrative burdens imposed by transporting a prisoner to the courthouse. S t o n e v. M o r r i s , 546 F.2d 730, 735 (7 th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, plaintiff may have until April 12, 2010 t o pick two of the prisoner witnesses to testify. ORDER I t is ORDERED that plaintiff Derrick Howard may have until April 12, 2010 to identify to the court two prisoners to testify about the events relevant to plaintiff's claims.

Entered this 26 th day of M a r c h , 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s / S T E P H E N L. CROCKER M a g is t r a t e Judge