From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 14, 2012
Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 LJO JLT (PC)

03-14-2012

ALLEN B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TRIAL

ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED

WITNESSES


(Docs. 110, 112-119).

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has recently filed a Pre-trial Statement (Doc. 110) and eight motions requesting the appearances of several incarcerated witnesses. (Docs. 112-119).

Plaintiff is reminded that on January 13, 2012, due to Defendant Bradley's military deployment and Plaintiff's request to amend the scheduling order, this Court vacated the trial confirmation hearing on February 3, 2012, the March 6, 2012 trial date, and all deadlines set forth in the Third Scheduling Order. (Doc. 104). The Court also set a new deadline for dispositive motions and Plaintiff's Opposition. (Doc. 104 and 107).

Since no new trial date has been scheduled, Plaintiff's pretrial statement and requests for appearances of witnesses at trial are premature. Plaintiff is advised, that at the appropriate time, if he wishes to have the Court issue orders for incarcerated witnesses to attend his trial, he will need to follow the instructions set forth in the order the Court will provide to him. The Court will advise Plaintiff of the required procedures for obtaining the attendance of witnesses at trial when that time draws nearer. However, the information Plaintiff provided in his recent motions will not be sufficient to justify the Court ordering the inmate-witnesses to appear at trial. (Docs. 112-119). Plaintiff is required to provide information including whether the witness is willing to attend the trial and the topics upon which the inmate is expected to testify and only witnesses with personal knowledge of the events will be allowed to testify.

Thus, Plaintiff's motions for attendance at trial of incarcerated witnesses Stubbs, Porter, Fane, Crayton, Lewis, Griffin, Hamilton and Quesada are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 14, 2012
Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 14, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012)