(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HACKWORTH, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTENDANCE OF 13 v. INCARCERATED WITNESS

14 E. AREVALOS, (Docs. 119 & 121)

15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 The Court issued its Amended Second Scheduling Order on April 23, 2024. (Doc. 118.) 19 Relevant here, the order specified the procedures for obtaining the attendance of incarcerated 20 witnesses at trial who are willing to testify. (Id. at 2-3.) 21 On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff Motion for Inmate Witness.” 22 (Doc. 119.) Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion. 23 On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff Motion for Inmate Witness 24 Andre L. Revis CDCR#V-97325.” (Doc. 121.) Although the time for filing an opposition to this 25 motion has not yet passed, the Court finds a response from Defendant to be unnecessary. 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff’s motions concern inmate witness Andre L. Revis. The Court presumes that because Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s first motion, Defendant likewise has no opposition 1 to the second, duplicative motion. Thus, the Court construes both motions to be unopposed. 2 Briefly stated, Plaintiff requests the Court order that Andre L. Revis, CDCR #V-97325, 3 incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, be transported to trial in this matter. He contends Revis 4 is both an eye and ear witness to the incident of March 1, 2018. More specifically, that Revis 5 observed and heard Plaintiff’s interaction with Defendant Arevalos as Revis stood at his cell door. 6 Plaintiff declares that Revis was also present when Plaintiff was attacked on November 14, 2018, 7 by other inmates and purportedly at Arevalos’s direction. Plaintiff maintains Revis’s testimony is 8 relevant and important to his case. Plaintiff further declares that Revis told Plaintiff he would be 9 willing to voluntarily testify about what he saw and heard. (Docs. 119, 121.) 10 “The determination whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum rests within 11 the sound discretion of the district court.” Cummings v. Adams, No. CV F 03 5294 DLB, 2006 12 WL 449095, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006). In determining whether to grant a motion for the 13 attendance of incarcerated witnesses, the Court considers the following factors: (1) whether the 14 inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks 15 presented by the inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of transportation and security, and (4) 16 whether the suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause asserted. 17 Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). 18 Plaintiff has provided inmate Revis’s full name, address, and prison identification number. 19 Further, Plaintiff has established by his declaration under penalty of perjury that Revis has 20 informed Plaintiff he is willing to testify voluntarily without being subpoenaed. And Plaintiff has 21 sworn under penalty of perjury that Revis is an eye and ear witness, describing the relevant facts 22 specific to the incident at issue, when and where it occurred, who was present and how Revis was 23 in a position to see or hear what occurred at the time it occurred. Plaintiff has complied with the 24 procedures outlined in the Court’s scheduling order for obtaining the attendance of an 25 incarcerated witness who is willing to testify. 26 Further, this Court finds that Revis’s presence will substantially further resolution of the 27 case given Plaintiff’s declaration that Revis is an eye and ear witness. Moreover, nothing suggests 1 | prohibitive. Lastly, the Court finds a stay would be prejudicial to Plaintiff given the age of this 2 | case and the fact the California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (CIRIS) tool reflects 3 | Revis is not eligible for parole until July 2029. Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 n.1. 4 In sum, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs motions will be granted.! 5 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of incarcerated witness Andre L. Revis, CDCR # 8 V-97325 (Docs. 119, 121), are GRANTED; 9 2. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to have Andre L. Revis brought to Court to 10 testify at trial will issue in due course. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 12, 2024 | Wr bo 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ——_ io ————_ ! Tn ruling on the motions, this Court is not making any evidentiary rulings. Nothing in this order prevents Defendant 28 || from raising objections to the testimony of Revis at trial or in an appropriate pretrial motion.