(PC) Jackson v. Quick ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF AN v. INCARCERATED WITNESS 14 JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 143). 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims 20 that Defendants Jason Quick, Elizabeth Alvarez, A. Rossette, Lt. Followill, Lisette Lopez, 21 Dominic Ramos, Hermina Marley, and Carmela Prudente violated his First and Sixth Amendment 22 rights regarding his legal mail. (ECF No. 131). The matter is currently set for a pretrial 23 conference on October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 148). No trial date has yet been set; however, the 24 presiding District Judge will set a trial at the pretrial conference. (See ECF No. 139). 25 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness, 26 Steve Garcia, who is alleged to have been cellmates with Plaintiff and to have witnessed events 27 relevant to his claims. (ECF No. 143). Plaintiff asks for an order directing Garcia to be delivered 28 to the Madera County Jail for purposes of testifying at trial. 1 As permitted by the Court (ECF No. 144), the California Department of Corrections and 2 Rehabilitation (CDCR), has filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 149). The response states 3 that counsel spoke with Garcia, who remembers being cellmates with Plaintiff and may have the 4 ability to testify regarding Plaintiff’s claims. However, Garcia also indicated that he just settled into his programming at Ironwood State Prison and would prefer not to be transferred to the 5 Madera County Jail for purposes of physically appearing at trial. Additionally, the response states 6 that Iron Wood Prison is 449 miles away from Madera County Jail, with the expense (including 7 overtime costs for two transport offices) and time expended (approximately 15 hours) in 8 transporting him outweighing any benefit to his appearing physically. The CDCR represents that 9 Ironwood State Prison has videoconferencing capabilities to make Garcia available to testify at 10 trial without the costs and time expenditures required by his physical appearance at trial. 11 Accordingly, the CDCR requests that Garcia be permitted to testify by video means. 12 “The determination whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum rests within 13 the sound discretion of the district court.” Cummings v. Adams, No. CV F 03 5294 DLB, 2006 14 WL 449095, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006). In determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motions 15 for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, the Court considers the following factors: (1) 16 whether the inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security 17 risks presented by the inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of transportation and security, and (4) 18 whether the suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause asserted. 19 Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). 20 After conducting a “cost-benefit analysis,” Cummings, 2006 WL 449095 at *3, the Court 21 has determined that it will grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that it will permit Garcia to testify 22 by video. Notably, there is no dispute that Garcia has relevant testimony for trial. The only issue 23 is how he should testify. Here, given Garcia’s preference not to disrupt his programming, and the cost, time, and effort that would have to be expended to physically bring him to trial, the Court 24 concludes that having him appear by video at trial is warranted. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attendance of an 2 | incarcerated witness (ECF No. 143) is GRANTED, in part. 3 The Court will, in due course, issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to have Steve 4 | Garcia, CDCR # BS2704, testify by video at the trial in this matter. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: _ October 2, 2023 [sJ ee ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28