From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

York v. Garcia

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 9, 2021
1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021)

Opinion

1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)

11-09-2021

REGINALD RAY YORK, Plaintiff, v. GARCIA, et al., Defendants.


Response Due: November 15, 2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED

(ECF NO. 137)

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Garcia for excessive use of force and against Defendant Neighbors for failure to protect. This case is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on December 13, 2021 and a jury trial commencing March 1, 2022 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Pursuant to the Court's August 4, 2021 Second Amended Second Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 135), Plaintiff submitted a pretrial statement, motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, and notification of the names and locations of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily, on October 6, 2021. (ECF No. 137.)

Defendants' opposition to the motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, if any, was due on or before November 8, 2021. On November 8, 2021, Defendants filed a pretrial statement acknowledging that Plaintiff listed two inmate witnesses in his pretrial statement, but questioning only whether each inmate witness has sufficient personal knowledge concerning relevant issues in this case to testify at trial. (ECF No. 138, p. 5.)

It appears that Defendants did not read the entirety of Plaintiff's filing, including the two motions for attendance of incarcerated witnesses Wallace W.Vaughn, (ECF No. 137, pp. 35-37), and Michael Washington, (id. at 38-41), wherein Plaintiff proffers that each prospective inmate witness is willing to testify voluntarily and that each has actual knowledge of relevant facts.

The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motions for attendance of incarcerated witnesses has expired, and they have not addressed Plaintiff's proffers, despite expressing doubt as to the witnesses' possession of sufficient personal knowledge relevant to the issues in this case. Defendants will be permitted an opportunity to show cause why these motions should not be granted as unopposed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before November 15, 2021, Defendants shall show cause by WRITTEN RESPONSE why Plaintiff's motions for attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, (ECF No. 137, pp. 35-37; 38-41), should not be granted as unopposed. Defendants may comply with the Court's order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to each of Plaintiff's motions for attendance of incarcerated witnesses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

York v. Garcia

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 9, 2021
1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021)
Case details for

York v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD RAY YORK, Plaintiff, v. GARCIA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 9, 2021

Citations

1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021)