(PC) McCoy v. Holguin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY, No. 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, TENTATIVE AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 13 v. Deadlines: 14 A. HOLGUIN, et al., Objections to Pretrial Order: December 27, 15 Defendants. 2024 16 Motion in Limine Filing: January 14, 2025 17 Oppositions: January 28, 2025

18 Exhibits due to Court: February 18, 2025 19 Proposed Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, and 20 Voir Dire: February 11, 2025 Objections: February 18, 2025 21 Trial Confirmation Hearing: February 18, 22 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 6 23 Jury Trial: February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. 24 Courtroom 6 25 26 On December 9, 2024, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action. 27 Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy appeared pro se via Zoom; Jeremy Duggan appeared via Zoom as 28 counsel for Defendants G. Arellano, E. Barron, Hollis Bennett, C. Casillas, O. Delgado, J. 1 Gonzales, A. Holguin, D. King, S. Lomas, A. Martinez, C. Martinez, Mayfield, Montanez, V. 2 Moore, and Moreno. This matter is set for a jury trial on February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in 3 Courtroom 6 before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. Having considered the parties’ pretrial 4 statements and views, the Court issues this tentative amended final pretrial order. 5 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 6 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. This action is set for trial 7 on Plaintiff’s claims for Eighth Amendment excessive use of force against Defendants Barron, 8 Casillas, Delgado, Gonzales, Holguin, King, Lomas, A. Martinez, Mayfield, Montanez, Moore, 9 and Moreno, and for Eighth Amendment failure to protect against Defendants Arellano, Bennett, 10 and C. Martinez. Doc. 233 at 1–2. 11 I. JURISDICTION/VENUE 12 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested. The 13 events at issue took place in Kern County, California. Accordingly, venue is proper pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is also not contested. 15 II. JURY 16 Plaintiff and Defendants demand a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors. 17 III. UNDISPUTED FACTS 18 1. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 20 2. Defendants are employees of CDCR and were acting within the scope of their 21 employment during the events alleged by Plaintiff. 22 3. The events in dispute occurred on March 12, 2015. 23 IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 24 1. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, and King 25 attacked Plaintiff during a handcuffed transport. 26 2. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Gonzales and A. Martinez dragged 27 Plaintiff to a holding cell and used force against him, causing a concussion, and 28 pinning him to the ground. 1 3. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Delgado, Barron, Montanez, Mayfield 2 and Moreno punched Plaintiff, and whether Defendant A. Martinez kicked 3 Plaintiff. 4 4. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendant Lomas grabbed Plaintiff’s leg, twisting 5 it and bending it backwards. 6 5. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants C. Martinez, Arellano, and Bennett 7 failed to intervene and protect Plaintiff. 8 6. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff broke free from Defendant Casillas’s 9 grasp during a transport and attacked Defendant Holguin. 10 7. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff again attacked officers after being 11 initially restrained. 12 8. Whether, as Defendants contend, correctional officers discovered two razor blades 13 in Plaintiff’s waistband. 14 9. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff received prison disciplinary violations 15 for, and was criminally prosecuted for, attacking an officer and possession of a 16 weapon. 17 10. Whether the incident reports and prison disciplinary reports regarding the 18 March 12, 2015, events are based on false statements by Defendants. 19 Plaintiff identifies the following disputed factual issues1: 20 1. Leading up to the incident that gave rise to this action, Plaintiff did write the 21 warden of the prison where he was housed at a grievance alerting her that the 22 building staff, Defendants in this action, were not allowing prisoners to exchange 23 dirty laundry for clean laundry, were not allowing prisoners to use the hair clippers 24 to groom, were not giving prisoners the opportunity to shower, and were not 25 providing “Inmate Request Forms” so that prisoners could address these or any 26 other issues at the lowest level. The grievance was then forwarded to Lieutenant 27 1 Plaintiff characterizes issues numbered 1 through 16 below as undisputed facts (Doc. 243 at 2– 28 6); however, Defendants dispute all of Plaintiff’s assertions (Doc. 241 at 2). 1 D. Calvillo who did before addressing the issue with Plaintiff, notify subordinate 2 staff that Plaintiff had filed a Complaint against them. 3 2. On February 28, 2015, Lieutenant Calvillo called Plaintiff out of his cell to Dining 4 Hall #3 to be interviewed regarding the grievance Plaintiff wrote to the warden. 5 Plaintiff explained to Lt. Calvillo that he was being harassed because of the 6 grievance; no action was taken. 7 3. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was handcuffed by Defendant Casillas and escorted 8 back to the unit by Defendants Holguin and Casillas. 9 4. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff was scheduled to attend the facility’s law library. 10 After breakfast, Defendant Casillas placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and led him down 11 the stairs out of the section and into the hallway. There were no inmates around. 12 Staff were not threatened in any way. 13 5. Defendants King, Casillas, and Holguin admitted through their signed incident 14 reports that they were in the hallway. 15 6. Plaintiff was struck by a baton and pepper sprayed by Defendants. Plaintiff ended 16 up outside the building, Facility 4A Building 6. Defendant Holguin did use his 17 baton and paper spray on Plaintiff; a handcuffed prisoner. While Plaintiff was 18 outside, someone sounded the alarm. Plaintiff was hit full force on his back right 19 arm and left thigh by Defendant Holguin. Defendant Holguin unleashed an entire 20 can of pepper spray in Plaintiff’s eyes and ears at close proximity. The force used 21 was unbearable. 22 7. At no time did Defendants Holland, Kilmer, S. Lomas, or Santa Maria intervene to 23 stop Defendants Moore, King, Holguin, and Casillas.2 Plaintiff was hit in his jaw. 24 At the time of the assault, Plaintiff weighed approximately 158 pounds; 155 to be 25 exact. 26 8. Defendants Hollis Bennett and Rachel DeLuna arrived with all medical 27 2 Defendants Holland, Kilmer, and Santa Maria were dismissed from the action on March 26, 28 2018. Doc. 96. 1 equipment.3 Defendants J. Gonzales and A. Martinez took Plaintiff by the arm 2 while he was handcuffed and pulled his arms above his head. He was taken to 3 Dining Hall #4, which was approximately 10–15 yards away. Defendants G. 4 Arellano and C. Martinez’s office is located in Dining Hall #4. The method of 5 pulling a prisoner’s arms above his or her head while they are handcuffed is 6 widely known as a “chicken wing” and if effectively applied will break the 7 recipient’s arms. 8 9. The cell door to place Plaintiff in the holding cell was opened. Before placing 9 Plaintiff in the holding cell, there was force used by Defendants Gonzales and 10 Martinez. Plaintiff suffered a concussion because of the force that was used. 11 Plaintiff was pulled out of the holding cell and thrown to the ground. Plaintiff was 12 pinned to the ground by at least one Defendant. After this incident occurred, 13 Plaintiff was placed in the holding cell. While being pinned to the ground, 14 Plaintiff was scarcely able to breath. 15 10. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff had a swollen and bruised ankle with cuts to 16 the ankle, cuts and numbness to both wrists, swollen left knee along with cuts to 17 the sides of both knees, redness, swelling, and an abrasion to the left thigh, injury 18 to his left side of his back, lacerations to the left side of his head, concussion, 19 swollen right jaw, bruising to the back of the right arm, Plaintiff was blinded by 20 the pepper spray which lasted approximately three weeks, requiring Plaintiff to be 21 treated by an eye doctor outside the prison. Plaintiff suffered from swelling and 22 pain to the back of his head. Numerous teeth have been chipped. Plaintiff had an 23 ear lavage to remove the pepper spray that was in his ears. 24 11. Plaintiff suffers from knee pain in his left leg, muscle strains, herniated back disc, 25 ringing and diminished hearing in his ears, inflammation in both eyes which had to 26 be treated with steroid eye drops, head trauma, unaligned jaw, and chronic dry 27

28 3 Rachel DeLuna was dismissed from the action on March 26, 2018. Doc. 96. 1 eyes. All injuries were documented via photos, digital camera, digital interview, 2 and medical reports. 3 12. Defendants filed an incident report beyond time constraints and in violation of 4 policy and procedure. Most of the Defendants previously named have failed to file 5 a report to date. 6 13. There was never an adequate, available administrative remedy to redress these 7 types of misconduct by staff throughout the prison. The remedies are 8 discretionary; however, Plaintiff was able to send the grievance to outside sources 9 and or agencies. 10 14. Plaintiff’s Rules Violation Report (CDC 115) was heard by Lt. D. Calvillo, but 11 contrary to policy, no final copy was ever provided to Plaintiff, thus prohibiting 12 him from knowing the findings and appealing the decision. The matter was 13 alleged to have been sent to the office of Internal Affairs. 14 15. Defendant Holguin received a broken hand the day of the incident consistent with 15 what’s called a “boxing fracture”. 16 16. In Holt v. Nichols, 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB (PC), Defendant Holguin admitted 17 under penalty of perjury that, during his employment with C.D.C.R., he used O.C. 18 pepper spray, and observed correctional staff use O.C. pepper spray on inmates. 19 On each occasion where they have used O.C. pepper spray, or observed 20 correctional staff use O.C. pepper spray on an inmate, the inmate had trouble 21 seeing, opening his eyes, and breathing. He experienced a burning sensation in his 22 eyes, and he was disoriented; but within approximately forty-five minutes, all of 23 the inmates’ symptoms resolved. 24 17. While returning from Court on February 26, 2015, Plaintiff was questioned about 25 the grievance by Defendants C. Casillas and D. King. Plaintiff was told he should 26 not have under any circumstance went over their heads and wrote the warden 27 about their failure to carry out their duties; at which time Plaintiff explained he 28 didn’t want any problems and informed them that he wouldn’t write any more 1 grievances. 2 18. On February 28, 2015, Plaintiff explained to Lt. D. Cavillo that staff had been 3 tipped off about the grievance he wrote to the warden. 4 19. Defendants C. Casillas, D. King, and V. Moore waited on Defendant A. Holguin to 5 return to work so they could formulate a plan to “punish” Plaintiff for exercising 6 his right to file a grievance. Upon returning to work Defendant Holguin did 7 willfully become an active participant and conspirator. 8 20. While coming through the Release and Return unit of the prison from Court on 9 March 5, 2015, Plaintiff noticed that Defendants Holguin and Casillas were 10 standing at the desk conversing with correctional officer Barbosa, coincidentally. 11 Defendant Holguin then stated, “here comes Deputy LaKeith,” referring to 12 Plaintiff in response to writing the grievance. After being placed in the holding 13 cell by transport staff, Defendant Casillas handcuffed Plaintiff and as they were 14 walking by the Release and Return desk, correctional officer Barbosa stated, 15 “hurry up and get back to the housing unit so McCoy can write those complaints!” 16 At that time, Defendant Holguin began looking at Plaintiff and making rude 17 comments. Plaintiff told Defendant Holguin to not play with him and stop talking 18 to him. 19 21. Upon arriving back at the housing unit, Plaintiff’s cell had been searched and left 20 in disarray. Plaintiff respectfully asked Defendant Casillas, after being placed in 21 the cell and uncuffed, who had searched the cell. At that point Defendant Casillas 22 became hostile and stated, “nobody searched your fucking cell, you little bitch!” 23 He then slammed the tray slot and stated, “you’re a fucking cell soldier, you’re 24 going to get yours!” Plaintiff yelled out the door at Defendant Casillas, “you’re a 25 bitch!” 26 22. While escorting Plaintiff to the law library on March 12, 2015, Defendant Casillas 27 had a tight grip on Plaintiff’s arm, was breathing very hard, and let Plaintiff to the 28 hallway in a hostile manner as was consistent with his character which was 1 evidenced from previous encounters. There was no encounter besides the 2 grievance issues and the shouting match between Plaintiff and Defendant Casillas 3 that led to the complained of assault. Staff was in no danger or threatened in any 4 way whatsoever. The beating was solely the result of the grievance and the 5 shouting which does not, under any laws of the United States, constitute sufficient 6 provocation. Immediately upon entering the hallway, Plaintiff saw Defendants V. 7 Moore, A. Holguin, and D. King standing in the hallway outside of their office 8 door. Defendant Casillas asked Plaintiff, “what’s up now motherfucker,” and 9 aggressively threw Plaintiff into the wall in the hallway while he was defenseless 10 and handcuffed. 11 23. At that time, Defendants Holguin and Casillas began punching Plaintiff, full force, 12 in the back of the head full force with closed fists. Defendant Holguin asked 13 Plaintiff, “who’s the bitch now?” All the while, Holguin and Casillas continued to 14 punch Plaintiff in the back of the head in cowardly fashion. Defendants Moore 15 and King did unlawfully join Defendants Casillas and Holguin in brutally beating 16 Plaintiff while he was defenseless and handcuffed. Plaintiff was continually and 17 repeatedly beat by this gang of correctional officers in such a cowardly fashion 18 while his back was turned. Plaintiff was punched numerous times in the back and 19 in the back of the head. On a few occasions, with malicious and evil intent, 20 defendants did strike Plaintiff with their batons. 21 24. The beating was so brutal, Plaintiff was beat toward the exit door, subsequently 22 ending up outside. As a result, in a panic, someone sounded the alarm. 23 Defendants Holland, Kilmer, S. Lomas, and Santa Maria came out of housing unit 24 5 which was next door and watched the beating. They did nothing to intervene. 25 There exists at the prison a strict code of silence which prohibits them from 26 intervening. 27 25. Plaintiff could not say or do anything. He was knocked nearly unconscious and 28 could not conjure up enough strength or energy to open his mouth to talk. These 1 acts were torturous. Plaintiff was hit in his jaw on what felt like the back right side 2 which left him nearly incapacitated and forced Plaintiff’s eyes to roll into the back 3 of his head. Defendant Holguin unleased an entire can of pepper spray on 4 Plaintiff. 5 26. No orders were issued for Plaintiff to get down or prone out. This was a gang 6 beating by rogue, properly supervised, correctional officers. Defendants Holland, 7 Kilmer, S. Lomas, Santa Maria did nothing more than watch. As Plaintiff proned 8 out on the ground, Defendant S. Lomas ran from behind Plaintiff, grabbed 9 Plaintiff’s leg, and began twisting, contorting, and bending Plaintiff’s leg in an 10 attempt to break it. Plaintiff could see Defendant Lomas in his peripheral vision. 11 He then backed up and congregated with all the other Defendants and started 12 watching Plaintiff lay there in extreme pain while he was proned out. 13 27. Defendants J. Gonzales and A. Martinez grabbed Plaintiff by his hands and the 14 middle of the handcuffs in an attempt to raise Plaintiff’s arms above his head while 15 being handcuffed from the back. They led Plaintiff to Dining Hall #4 16 approximately 10–15 yards away at a gruelingly fast pace. Defendants DeLuna 17 and Bennett were in tow and watching this scene play out while laughing about the 18 situation. Upon arriving in Dining Hall #4, there were numerous correctional 19 officers congregating including Defendants G. Arellano and C. Martinez who had 20 walked out of their office which is located in Dining Hall #4. 21 28. Defendant Gonzales told Defendant A. Martinez, “hold on,” before putting 22 Plaintiff into the holding cell. He then grabbed Plaintiff viciously by the back of 23 the neck and shoved Plaintiff into the holding cell forcing Plaintiff to hit his head 24 on the back of the cell. He was pulled out and this was repeated a second time by 25 the same Defendant Gonzales. Defendants Bennett and DeLuna willfully stood by 26 watching and observing this conduct while standing in Dining Hall #4, as well as 27 Defendants G. Arellano and C. Martinez. 28 29. After being thrown to the back of the cell and sustaining a head injury, Plaintiff 1 was pulled out a final time and thrown to the ground. Defendants C. Martinez and 2 G. Arellano were standing in front of Plaintiff allowing these actions to be carried 3 out. Plaintiff was then sat on by O. Delgado, E. Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, and 4 Moreno who all began committing further atrocious acts of punching Plaintiff 5 wherever they could find unprotected body parts while he was on the ground. 6 Defendant A. Martinez, maliciously, sadistically with evil intent kicked Plaintiff in 7 the ribs. 8 30. Plaintiff cried out, “I didn’t do anything.” Eventually Defendant G. Arellano told 9 Plaintiff, “if WE let you up, will you be cool and not try to retaliate?” Upon 10 information and belief, this was said in a manner as to empower himself while at 11 the same time assure that Plaintiff would be quiet about the situation. Plaintiff 12 assured him that he wouldn’t do anything, and by stating he wouldn’t do anything, 13 Plaintiff was under the impression that they wanted him to be completely silent 14 about the attack. 15 31. When Plaintiff was eventually taken to the facility clinic, Defendant Bennett did 16 wait approximately 30 minutes to an hour to see Plaintiff and when she finally did 17 see him, she came into the room and stated, “I’m not worried about no inmate; 18 only custody,” meaning correctional staff. 19 32. The prison medical staff made jokes to the effect of, “you sure are doing good to 20 have been beat up by correctional officers” and “if your teeth are bothering you 21 that much, then you should just have them removed!” Subsequently, Defendants 22 filed a false report stating that Plaintiff tried to run toward Defendant Holguin 23 while he was handcuffed.4

24 ///

25 ///

26 /// 27 4 Plaintiff also notes in a footnote: “Plaintiff was criminally charged and faced a potential life 28 sentence. In March 2021, all charges were dismissed after five years.” Doc. 243 at 10–11, ¶ 1. 1 Defendants identify the following disputed factual issues: 2 1. Defendants dispute all of Plaintiff’s allegations in his pre-trial statements. 3 2. Defendants contend that during an escort on March 12, 2015, Plaintiff broke away 4 from Defendant Casillas’s grasp, and charged Defendant Holguin, attacking him 5 and injuring him. Officers were required to use reasonable force to bring Plaintiff 6 under control. 7 3. After Plaintiff was restrained, officers attempted to put Plaintiff into a holding cell. 8 Plaintiff again attacked officers. Officers again restrained Plaintiff, but discovered 9 two razor blades in his waistband. 10 4. Plaintiff received disciplinary violations for attacking an officer and possession of 11 a weapon. 12 V. DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES 13 None listed. 14 VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 15 Defendants identify the following as disputed evidentiary issues: 16 1. Defendants do not anticipate disputes concerning admissibility of live or 17 deposition testimony, physical or demonstrative evidence, or the use of special 18 technology at trial, including computer animation, video discs, or other high 19 technology. 20 Plaintiff identifies the following as disputed evidentiary issues: 21 1. After Discovery had closed, after the criminal case had been concluded, after 22 many Motions To Compel Discovery, Defendants produced expert opinions which 23 revealed they withheld Discovery in this matter and the criminal matter. The 24 expert relied on reports written by a Lieutenant, a Captain, and Associate Warden 25 who all concluded in their final analysis that these Defendants violated policies 26 before, during, and after the incident. Plaintiff disputes the findings of the expert. 27 2. Plaintiff disputes the honesty of the incident reports written at the prison on the 28 day of the incident. 1 3. Plaintiff disputes Defendants reports that he kept tried to get off the ground by 2 transitioning to his knees. Plaintiff, since the year of 2011, has had a torn 3 meniscus and injury to his patella tendon. It is impossible for Plaintiff to perform 4 these types of maneuvers with said injury. 5 VII. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 6 The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain 7 evidence should not be offered at trial. The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar 8 use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is 9 not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. 10 In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties shall meet and confer to determine 11 whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. 12 Any motions in limine the parties intend to file must be filed with the Court no later than 13 January 14, 2025. The motion must clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving 14 party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be 15 served on the other party and filed with the Court no later than January 28, 2025. After 16 reviewing the motions and any opposition briefs, the Court will notify the parties if a reply brief 17 is necessary. As such, parties shall not file any reply briefs without Court approval. The Court 18 will also notify the parties if it will hear argument on any motions in limine prior to the first day 19 of trial. The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial. 20 VIII. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6) Defendants provide the following information pertinent 22 to tort and personal injury actions: 23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force or failed to protect him from other Defendants on March 12, 2015. Plaintiff 24 alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants 25 contend the force used was necessary. 26 Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiff is thirty-nine years old. Defendants deny Plaintiff suffered any significant 27 injuries, other than exposure to O.C. Spray. Plaintiff did not incur any medical expenses, did not suffer any disability, did not have 28 any earnings before the incident, and did not suffer any earnings 1 loss after the incident.

2 Doc. 241 at 2–3. 3 IX. RELIEF SOUGHT 4 1. Plaintiff seeks $1.5 million in compensatory damages from each Defendant 5 “jointly and severally,” and $3 million in punitive damages against each Defendant 6 “jointly and severally.” Doc. 243 at 11. 7 2. Defendants seek judgment in their favor and an award of costs. 8 X. POINTS OF LAW 9 The claims and defenses arise under federal law. 10 1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim of excessive force in 11 violation of the Eighth Amendment. 12 2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim of failure to protect 13 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 14 3. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for an award of punitive 15 damages. 16 4. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for the affirmative defense of 17 qualified immunity. 18 Plaintiff identifies the following points of law: 19 1. Plaintiff does not anticipate there will be controversy in regards to any points of 20 law. The legal theory this action proceeds on is an Eighth Amendment violation 21 for cruel and unusual punishment for use of excessive force as well as Defendants 22 failure to intervene in the use of excessive force. 23 Defendants identify the following points of law: 24 1. Excessive Force 25 “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation 26 of the [Eighth Amendment], the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good- 27 faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 28 1 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 2 (1986). Prison officials may also be liable if they had the opportunity to intervene to stop 3 excessive force by other officers and failed to do so. Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1290 4 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 2. Causation 6 In assessing the imposition of liability under § 1983, we must first ask “(1) whether the 7 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) 8 whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 9 Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on 10 other grounds, Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). There are two aspects to the second 11 inquiry: “(1) there must have been a deprivation of federally protected rights, privileges or 12 immunities, and (2) the conduct complained of must have been causally connected to the 13 deprivation.” Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 559 (1st Cir. 1989), citing Woodley v. 14 Town of Nantucket, 645 F. Supp. 1365, 1369 n. 4 (D. Mass. 1986) (emphasis added). Section 1983 15 thus focuses the inquiry on whether an official's acts or omissions were the cause—not merely a 16 contributing factor—of the constitutionally infirm condition. LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 17 1538 (11th Cir. 1993). To be entitled to judgment on a failure to protect claim under the Eighth 18 Amendment, a plaintiff must show a causal relationship between his or her injury and the deliberate 19 actions of the defendant prison official. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). The issue 20 of causation must be resolved by an individualized inquiry into each defendant’s duties, discretion, 21 and ability to avert the threatened harm. Id. at 633–34. Plaintiff must prove: (1) that the specific 22 prison official, in acting or failing to act, was deliberately indifferent to the mandates of the Eighth 23 Amendment, and (2) that this indifference was the actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of 24 the inmate's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Id. (emphasis 25 added.) 26 Plaintiff must show that there exists a direct causal connection, Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 27 378, 387–388 (1989), without intervening factors, between the deprivation and some injury to 28 plaintiff. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1984). 1 3. Admissibility of Felony Convictions 2 For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness, evidence that a 3 witness has been convicted of a crime that was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year 4 shall be admitted subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1); see e.g., 5 Untied States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that trial court properly 6 determined that probative value of seventeen-year old conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect 7 when needed to resolve significant conflict between defendant and the government’s chief 8 witness). 9 The presumption under Rule 609(a) is that the term “evidence” encompasses the essential 10 facts of the conviction, including the statutory name of each offense, the date of conviction, and 11 the sentence imposed. United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 615-16 (2d Cir. 2005); United 12 States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that impeachment with prior 13 convictions is generally limited to the crime charged, the date, and the disposition); see also, 4 14 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.20[2] at 609-57 15 (2d ed. 2005) (“When a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment, the impeaching party is 16 generally limited to establishing that bare facts of the conviction; usually the name of the offense, 17 the date of the conviction, and the sentence.”). 18 4. Qualified Immunity 19 Government officials are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct 20 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 21 would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The purpose of the rule is to 22 permit officials to undertake their responsibilities without fear that they will be held liable in damages 23 for actions that appear reasonable at the time, but are later held to violate statutory or constitutional 24 rights. Id. at 819. “The concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes 25 can be made” and that it is “often difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine 26 will apply to the factual situation that he faces.” Estate of Ford v. Ramirez Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 27 1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205 (2001)). Thus, “regardless of whether 28 the constitutional violation occurred, the [official] should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff 1 was not ‘clearly established’ or the [official] could have reasonably believed that his particular 2 conduct was lawful.” Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 In Saucier, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part inquiry to determine whether the immunity 4 exits. The initial inquiry, or first prong, is whether “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party 5 asserting the injury, . . . the facts alleged show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional 6 right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. If, and only if, a violation can be made out, the next step, or second 7 prong, is to ask whether the “right was clearly established.” Id. If the right was clearly established at 8 the time of the alleged incident, the court must then determine whether, “under that law, could a 9 reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful” Id. at 202; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 10 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Browning v. Vernon, 44 F.3d 818, 822 (9th Cir. 1995)). Qualified 11 immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments,” 12 and “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Ashcroft v. al- 13 Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 14 “The linchpin of qualified immunity is the reasonableness of the official’s conduct.” 15 Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 654 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011). Reasonableness is judged against 16 the backdrop of law at the time of the conduct at issue. Brouseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 17 (2004); Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999). Thus, the reasonableness inquiry must be 18 undertaken in light of the specific context of the case and not as a general, broad proposition. Saucier, 19 533 U.S. at 202; Kennedy v. Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2006). Qualified immunity 20 allows ample room for mistaken judgments—regardless of whether the government official’s error is 21 “a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact”—and 22 applies even when wrongful conduct occurs. Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 (1997); 23 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). The court has the discretion, based on the 24 circumstances of the particular case at hand, to decide whether the two-part inquiry is worthwhile or if 25 a determination can be made by analyzing a single prong of the immunity inquiry. Pearson at 236. 26 5. Punitive Damages 27 Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action only when a defendant’s conduct is 28 shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous 1 indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983). A 2 finding that a defendant is not protected by qualified immunity does not automatically mean that 3 punitive damages should be awarded. Hernandez-Tirado v. Artau, 874 F.2d 866, 870 (1st Cir. 4 1989). Nor is it enough that a defendant may have acted in an objectively unreasonable manner; 5 his subjective state of mind must be assessed. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th 6 Cir. 1989). Where there is no evidence that a defendant acted with evil intent, there is no legal 7 right to punitive damages. Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 286 (9th Cir. 1991). The 8 plaintiff alleging a § 1983 claim has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be 9 awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 10 Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 7.5 (2004)). 11 ANY CAUSES OF ACTION NOT LISTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER 12 POINTS OF LAW ARE DISMISSED AND DEEMED WAIVED. 13 XI. ABANDONED ISSUES 14 None. 15 XII. WITNESSES 16 Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A.5 Defendants’ witnesses shall 17 be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 18 Plaintiff timely moved for the appearance of witness Joshua Howard (Doc. 238), and the Court 19 granted Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 240). Plaintiff additionally indicated in his motion that Mr. 20 Howard prefers to testify remotely. Doc. 238 at 5. After discussion with the parties, the Court 21 denies this request without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure at this time to show good cause. 22 The assigned magistrate judge set deadlines and fees for the attendance of Plaintiff’s remaining 23 non-incarcerated witnesses, and those fees are due December 23, 2024. Doc. 240. The assigned 24 magistrate judge will issue an order addressing the status of Plaintiff’s witnesses once that 25 deadline passes. 26 /// 27

28 5 Plaintiff separately filed his list of proposed witnesses. Doc. 239. 1 The Court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, 2 including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria: 3 1. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of 4 rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial 5 conference; or 6 2. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party 7 makes the showing required in paragraph 3, below. 8 3. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, 9 the party shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of 10 the unlisted witness so the Court may consider whether said witness shall be 11 permitted to testify at trial. The witness will not be permitted unless: 12 a. The witness could not have reasonably been discovered prior to the 13 discovery cutoff; 14 b. The Court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of 15 the witness; 16 c. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and 17 d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony 18 was provided to opposing parties. 19 XIII. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES 20 Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in Attachment C. Defendants’ exhibits are listed in 21 Attachment D. The parties must prepare four (4) separate exhibit binders for use by the Court at 22 trial, with a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the following specifications: 23 1. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered 24 sequentially beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). 25 2. Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “DX” and numbered 26 sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX-200, DX-201, etc.) and shall be 27 separated by tabs. 28 3. Joint exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “JT” and numbered sequentially 1 beginning with 1 (e.g., JT-1, JT-2, etc.), and Defendants’ counsel shall submit the 2 original and two (2) copies of the joint trial exhibits, with exhibit lists and 3 separated by tabs. 4 4. Exhibits that are multiple pages shall be marked with page numbers in addition to 5 the prefix and exhibit number, on each page of the exhibit (e.g., PX-100, page 1 of 6 2, PX-100, page 2 of 2, etc.). 7 5. Each binder shall have an identification label on the front and spine. 8 The parties shall submit their exhibit binders to Courtroom Deputy Victoria 9 Gonzales no later than February 18, 2025. 10 6. Exchange of Trial Exhibits 11 The parties shall also serve one (1) copy of all trial exhibits, along with their exhibit list, 12 on each other no later than January 21, 2025, and any objections thereto are due no later than 13 February 4, 2025. This includes any demonstrative evidence the parties intend to use. 14 7. Use of Undisclosed Exhibits 15 The Court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose, including 16 impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria: 17 a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the 18 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably 19 anticipated, or 20 b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the 21 proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph a, below. 22 c. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall 23 promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of such 24 exhibits by filing a notice on the docket so that the Court may consider 25 their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the 26 proffering party demonstrates: 27 d. The exhibits could not have reasonably been discovered earlier; 28 e. The Court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their 1 existence; and 2 f. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically 3 possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied, the 4 proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably 5 available for inspection. 6 XIV. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 7 The following is a list of discovery documents that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO 8 DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY 9 BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT 10 THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(12). 12 Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery to be Proffered at Trial6: 13 1. Plaintiff’s May 18, 2017 deposition. 14 2. Interrogatories of Defendant Montanez (June 21, 2017). 15 3. Interrogatories of Defendant G. Arellano (June 27, 2017). 16 4. Interrogatories of Defendant Mayfield (June 25, 2017). 17 5. Interrogatories of Defendant E. Barron (June 27, 2017). 18 6. Interrogatories of Santa Maria (June 21, 2017). 19 7. Interrogatories of DeLuna (June 28, 2017). 20 8. Interrogatories of Defendant Moreno (June 21, 2017). 21 9. Interrogatories of defendant S. Lomas (June 26, 2017). 22 10. Interrogatories of Kilmer. 23 11. Interrogatories of Holland (June 21, 2017). 24 12. Interrogatories of defendant O. Delgado (June 28, 2017). 25 13. Interrogatories of defendant Hollis Bennett (June 7, 2016). 26

27 6 Plaintiff’s final pretrial statement refers to an Appendix B containing his discovery documents, but no Appendix B is attached to his pretrial statement. Plaintiff’s discovery documents listed in 28 this section were identified the previous final pretrial order. Doc. 137 at 6–7. 1 14. Interrogatories of defendant V. Moore (June 8, 2016). 2 15. Interrogatories of defendant C. Martinez (June 27, 2017). 3 16. Interrogatories of defendant A. Martinez (June 22, 2017). 4 17. Interrogatories of defendant J. Gonzales (June 20, 2017). 5 18. Interrogatories of defendant D. King (June 26, 2017). 6 19. Interrogatories of defendant C. Casillas (June 25, 2017). 7 20. All interrogatories of defendant A. Holguin. 8 21. Preliminary hearing transcript, People v. McCoy (2016). 9 22. Plaintiff’s interrogatories. 10 23. Deposition of plaintiff (date unknown). 11 Defendants’ Proposed Discovery to be Proffered at Trial: 12 1. Defendants indicate in their pretrial statement they intend to introduce excerpts of 13 Plaintiff’s deposition testimony at trial. Doc. 241 at 11. 14 The parties must lodge with the Clerk of Court, no later than February 18, 2025, a copy 15 of any deposition transcript to be used at trial. 16 XV. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS 17 Plaintiff does not indicate in his pretrial statement that he intends to file any additional 18 motions. Plaintiff seeks as additional discovery the medical records of A. Holguin from 19 March 12, 2015. That request will not be granted. Discovery and law and motion are closed in 20 this action pursuant to the Court’s previously issued scheduling orders. 21 Defendants intend to file motions in limine but do not anticipate filing any other pretrial 22 motions. Defendants indicate that they may move for judgment as a matter of law under Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 50 at the close of Plaintiff’s case in chief and before the case is submitted 24 to the jury. 25 XVI. STIPULATIONS 26 Defendants are willing to stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s unaltered records from 27 his central and medical files maintained by CDCR and any CDCR record generated and 28 maintained in the regular course of business, which may be used as exhibits at trial. Defendants 1 reserve the right to object to such exhibits on other grounds. 2 XVII. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS 3 None. 4 XVIII. SETTLEMENT 5 The parties participated in a settlement conference on February 26, 2021, which resulted 6 in an impasse. Doc. 142. A settlement conference scheduled for December 15, 2021, was 7 cancelled due to Plaintiff’s decision not to participate. Doc. 174. Defendants do not believe that 8 further settlement negotiations would be productive or beneficial. Plaintiff believes that further 9 settlement negotiations or a settlement conference “would be helpful.” The parties will notify the 10 Court if they believe a further settlement conference before a magistrate judge prior to trial would 11 be useful. 12 XIX. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE 13 The Court has drafted the following neutral statement of the case to be read to the 14 prospective jurors: 15 Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants used excessive force against him on March 12, 2015, and that other defendants failed to 16 protect him from such use of excessive force. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants contend the force used was necessary. 18 19 XX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 20 There will be no separate trial of issues in this action. However, the Court will bifurcate 21 the trial with respect to the amount of punitive damages, if necessary. Should a jury find punitive 22 liability in the first phase of the trial, the trial will proceed to a second phase which will consist of 23 any evidence and argument with respect to the appropriate amount of punitive damages. The 24 parties may not present evidence regarding the amount of punitive damages until the second 25 phase of the trial. 26 XXI. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS 27 None. Defendants have retained and disclosed expert witness John Diaz. 28 1 XXII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 2 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Kay v. Ehrler, 499 3 U.S. 432, 435 (1991). 4 Defendants will seek costs as appropriate, but not attorney’s fees. 5 XXIII. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS 6 Defendants do not anticipate any special handling of exhibits of trial exhibits pursuant to 7 Local Rule 138(e). 8 Pursuant to the Court’s policy, at the end of the trial the Court will return all exhibits to 9 the proffering party to be retained during the pendency of any appeals. 10 XXIV. MISCELLANEOUS 11 Plaintiff indicates that he will move for a default against defendant Holguin for failure to 12 properly execute his interrogatories. However, any such motion would be untimely as discovery 13 and law and motion are closed in this action pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order. 14 XXV. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE 15 Jury trial is set for February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 before District 16 Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. Trial is anticipated to last 10–12 court days. 17 A trial confirmation hearing is set for February 18, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6. 18 XXVI. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, AND VERDICT 19 FORM 20 1. Proposed Jury Voir Dire 21 The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire by February 11, 2025. Each party will 22 be limited to twenty minutes of jury voir dire, unless they show good cause for additional time. 23 2. Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Verdict Form 24 a. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer, if possible, to generate a 25 joint set of jury instructions and a joint verdict form. The parties shall file 26 any such joint set of instructions by February 11, 2025, identified as 27 “Joint Proposed Jury Instructions.” The parties shall file any agreed upon 28 verdict form as a “Joint Proposed Verdict Form.” If the parties cannot 1 agree upon certain specific jury instructions and/or the verdict form, 2 Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict 3 form as provided in Local Rule 163 by February 11, 2025. Plaintiff is not 4 required to file proposed jury instructions or a proposed verdict form, but if 5 he wishes to do so, he must file them by February 11, 2025. 6 b. The parties shall indicate on any proposed jury instructions or proposed 7 verdict form the party submitting the proposed instructions or verdict form 8 (i.e., Joint, Plaintiff’s, or Defendants’). 9 c. The parties shall also include on all proposed jury instructions the 10 following: 11 i. The number of the proposed instruction in sequence. 12 ii. A brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter. 13 iii. The complete text of the instruction. 14 iv. The legal authority supporting the instruction. 15 v. The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any 16 modification from statutory or case authority, or any pattern or form 17 instruction, or any other source of pattern instructions. 18 vi. The parties must specifically state the modification made to the 19 original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the 20 modification. 21 vii. All blanks in form instructions should be completed and all 22 brackets removed. 23 d. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions shall be used where the subject of 24 the instruction is covered by the model instructions, including for all 25 standard instructions. State model jury instructions, such as BAJI or CACI 26 instructions, shall be used where applicable as to state law claims. The 27 parties shall designate, by italics or underlining, any proposed modification 28 of instructions from any pattern instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit 1 Model Civil Jury Instructions or other pattern instructions, or from 2 statutory or case authority. The parties must specifically state the 3 modification made to the standard instruction and the legal authority 4 supporting the proposed modification. All instructions shall be short, 5 concise, understandable, and neutral and accurate statements of the law. 6 Argumentative instructions will not be given and must not be submitted. 7 e. The parties shall e-mail two copies of their proposed jury instructions to 8 vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov no later than February 11, 2025. One set 9 shall indicate the party proposing the instruction, with each instruction 10 numbered, and shall cite supporting authority. The other set shall be an 11 exact copy of the first set but shall be a “clean” copy that does not contain 12 the identification of the offering party, the instruction number, supporting 13 authority, or any reference to the Court’s disposition of the proposed 14 instruction. 15 3. Objections to proposed jury instructions 16 a. The parties must file any objections to proposed jury instructions by 17 February 18, 2025. Each objection shall identify the challenged 18 instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis for the 19 objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting 20 party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or 21 identify which of his or her own proposed instructions covers the subject. 22 XXVII. TRIAL BRIEFS 23 The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file a trial brief. If any 24 party wishes to submit a trial brief, they must do so by February 18, 2025. 25 XXVIII. USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN COURTROOM 26 Any party wishing to receive an overview or tutorial of the court’s electronic equipment 27 must contact the Courtroom Deputy Victoria Gonzales at (559) 499-5676 or 28 vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov at least three (3) weeks before the start of trial to schedule a 1 tutorial session at a time convenient to the court’s information technology staff. The parties need 2 to coordinate so everyone who is interested can attend the IT conference as the court will hold 3 only one conference per case. The parties and counsel shall confer and advise the courtroom 4 deputy of the date and time that has been agreed upon. Counsel will not be provided any training 5 on the day of or during the trial. The electronic equipment and resources available for this trial 6 may differ from the equipment and resources available in other courtrooms and may even differ 7 from the equipment and resources available in this courtroom at another time. It is the 8 responsibility of the parties to familiarize themselves with the equipment and resources available 9 for use in this trial prior to the commencement of trial. If any party is unfamiliar with the 10 equipment and resources available for use in this trial, that party may be ordered to proceed 11 without the aid of such equipment and resources and/or may be sanctioned for any fees, costs, or 12 expenses associated with any delay. 13 XXIX. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER 14 Written objections to the pretrial order, if any, must be filed within 10 days from the date 15 of service of this order. Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, corrections, 16 additions, or deletions. 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 XXX. COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER 2 Strict compliance with this pretrial order and its requirements is mandatory. The Court 3 | will enforce the requirements of this pretrial order, and counsel and parties are subject to 4 | sanctions for failure to comply fully with this order and its requirements. The Court will modify 5 | the pretrial order “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The Court 6 | ADMONISHES the parties and counsel to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 7 | Rules, and the Court’s orders. Failure to do so will make the parties and/or counsel subject to 8 || sanctions. 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ December 13, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27

1 ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses 2 Individual Fact v. Expert Contact Information 3 1. Joshua Howard Fact 4 c/o Kern Valley State Prison 5 2. William Coleman Fact 6 Unknown 7 8 3. Maybren Johnson Fact Unknown 9 10 4. Dr. Steven Yaplee Fact Triangle Eye Institute 11 9700 Brimhall Rd. 12 Bakersfield, CA 93312 13 5. J. Gutierrez (former Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 14 Correctional Officer) 15 6. Santa Maria Fact 16 c/o California Correctional Institution 17 7. Holland Fact 18 Unknown 19 20 8. Kilmer Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 21 22 9. Rachel DeLuna Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 23 24 10. Abel Garcia Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 25 26 27 28 1 11. Daniel Verduzco Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 2 3 12. K. Westergren Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 4 5 13. J. Gutierrez (former Fact 6 Associate Warden) c/o California Correctional Institution 7 14. J. Jones Fact 8 c/o California Correctional Institution 9 10 15. L. Cardenas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ATTACHMENT B: Defendants’ Witnesses 2 Individual Fact v. Expert Contact Information 3 1. O. Delgado Fact 4 c/o California Correctional Institution 5 6 2. C. Martinez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 7 8 3. G. Arellano Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 9 10 4. V. Moore Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 11 12 5. B. Mayfield Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 13 14 15 6. R. Montanez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 16 17 7. H. Bennett Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 18 19 8. E. Barron Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 20 21 22 9. J. Gonzales Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 23 24 10. A. Martinez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 25 26 27 28 1 11. A. Holguin Fact c/o Jeremy Duggan Office of the Attorney General 2 1300 I Street Suite 125 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-210-6008 4 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov 12. A. Moreno Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 5 6 7 13. S. Casillas Fact c/o Jeremy Duggan Office of the Attorney General 8 1300 I Street Suite 125 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-210-6008 10 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov 14. S. Lomas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 11 12 15. R. DeLuna Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 13 14 15 16. D. King Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 16 17 17. E. Barajas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 18 19 18. A. Garcia Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 20 21 22 19. J. Gonzales Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 23 24 20. J. Jones Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 25 26 27 28 1 21. D. Crounse Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 2 3 22. D. Calvillo Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 4 5 23. T. Diaz Expert c/o Jeremy Duggan 6 Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street 7 Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 8 916-210-6008 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov 9 24. R. Wilson Expert c/o Jeremy Duggan Office of the Attorney General 10 1300 I Street Suite 125 11 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-210-6008 12 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov 25. Custodian of Records for CDCR Fact c/o California Correctional Institution 13 14 15

28 1 ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 Ex. Description Beginning Bates Nos. Ending Bates Nos. 3 1. Medical Records of A. Holguin 4 2. Medical Reconciliation Reports 3. Physicians’ Orders CDC 7221 5 4. Patient Care Tracking Records CDCR 7882 6 Health Care Services Request Forms CDC 5. 7362 7 6. Interdisciplinary Progress Notes CDC 7230 8 7. Chronic Care Progress Notes 7419 8. Encounter Forms 9 9. Initial Health Screenings CDCR 7277 10 Health Care Services Physician Requests for 10. Services CDC 7243 11 11. Hearing Test Results 12 12. Dental History Records CDCR 7443 Dental Examination and Treatment Plans 13 13. CDCR 237-B Supplemental Dental Examination and 14 14. Treatment Plans CDCR 237-B-1 15 15. Periodontal Charts CDCR 7431 Supplemental Dental Progress Notes CDCR 16 16. 237-C-1 17 17. Dental Pain Profiles CDCR 237-F 18. Photos of Plaintiff 18 19. Photos of Ariel Holguin 19 20. Complaint, People v. McCoy, MF012024A 21. Probable Cause Declaration 20 22. Inmate Segregation Records, CDC 114-A 21 23. District Attorney Referral Status Reports Case Law- Holt v. Nichols, 1:09-cv-00800- 22 24. AWI-SAB Departmental Operation Manual Section 23 25. 51030.8 - Threats 24 26. Rules Violation Reports CDC 115 Multi-Purpose Worksheet for Inmate 25 Conduct/Information Documentation CDC 27. 115 26 28. Administrative Contact Reports 27 29. Chrono 5 CDC 128-C 28 1 Primary Care Provider Progress Notes, 30. CDCR 7230-M 2 Triage and Treatment Services Flow Sheet 3 31. CDCR 7464 32. X-ray Mandible Fracture Results 4 Triangle Eye Institute Medical 33. Reports/Records 5 34. Mail Logs 6 35. Declarations of Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy 7 36. Declarations of Daniel Verduzco Statements from Plaintiff dated March 13, 8 37. 2015 CDCR Memorandum Dated 2-22-2016 to: 9 38. Brandon Stallings 10 39. Crime/Incident Reports 837-A 40. Crime/Incident Reports 837-A1 11 41. Crime/Incident Reports 837-B1 12 42. Crime/Incident Reports 837-B2 43. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C 13 44. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C1 14 45. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C2 Medical Reports of Injuries or Unusual 15 46. Occurrences Multi-purpose Worksheets for Inmate 16 47. Conduct/Information Documentation 17 48. Chronos CDC 128 B 49. CCI Holding Cell Logs 18 Employee’s Reports to Supervisor of Job- 19 50. Related Injury/Illness IIPP Form 6 Occupational Illness or Exposure 20 51. Investigation Reports IIPP Form 5b 52. Miranda Rights Forms 21 53. Serious Rules Violations Reports CDC 115-A 22 54. Rules Violations Reports CDC 115-C 23 55. Excerpts from Title 15 56. Health Care Appeals 24 57. Inmate Request for Interviews 25 58. Inmate Appeal Assignment Notices Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item, 26 59. or Service CDCR 22 60. Letters from Office of Appeals 27 Sacramento Bee Report: Guards Accused of 28 61. Cruelty, Racism 1 62. Staff Assignment Rosters Preliminary Hearing Transcripts, People v. 2 63. McCoy, MF012024A 3 64. Interrogatories of All Defendants Inmate Interview Video, Log #CCI-FAA-15- 4 65. 03-0044 5 66. Incident Report-Cover Sheets CDCR 837-A Crime/Incident Reports- Supplement CDCR 6 67. 837-A1 7 68. Amended Administrative Contact Reports 69. Staff Sign-in Sheet/Time cards 8 70. Departmental Operations Manual 9 71. Inmate/Parolee Appeals CDCR 602/602-A 72. Letters from Division Adult Institutions 10 California Correctional Institution SHU/ASU 73. Orientation Manual 11 Correspondence from Kern County District 12 74. Attorney Correspondence from Office of the Inspector 13 75. General 14 76. Information, People v. McCoy, MF012024A Civil Complaint, LaKeith LeRoy McCoy v. 15 77. CDCR et al., BCV-15-101024-TSC California Code of Regulations Title 15- 16 78. Crime Prevention and Corrections Memorandum dated December 30, 2011, 17 Secure Appeal Collection Sides and Related 18 79. Matters 2015 Special Review: High Desert State 19 80. Prison, Susanville, CA 20 81. Cell/Locker Search Receipts 82. Inmate Property Inventory CDC 1083 21 83. Government Claims Forms 22 Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System 84. Reports 23 Deposition, McCoy v. CDCR, BCV-15- 85. 101024-TSC 24 Interrogatory Responses from A. Holguin, 86. McCoy v. CDCR, BCV-15-101024-TSC 25 Interrogatory Responses from CDCR, McCoy 26 87. v. CDCR, BCV-15-101024-TSC 88. Inmate Segregation Profiles CDC 114-A1 27 Correspondence from Medical Board of 28 89. Central California Complaint Unit 1 90. Memorandums Habeas Corpus, In Re: Daniel Verduzco, HC 2 91. 014734A 3 92. Declaration of Jasper Wilson Letter to Warden Kim Holland from Daniel 4 93. Verduzco 5 94. CDC-115 of Daniel Verduzco 95. Miscellaneous 6

28 1 ATTACHMENT D: Defendants’ Exhibits7 2 Ex. Description Beginning Bates Nos. Ending Bates Nos. 3 Medical Report of Injury or Unusual 4 a. Appearance, dated March 12, 2015 Medical Report of Injury or Unusual 5 b. Appearance, dated March 12, 2015 c. Picture dated March 12, 2015 6 d. Picture dated March 12, 2015 7 e. Picture dated March 12, 2015 f. Picture dated March 12, 2015 8 g. Picture dated March 12, 2015 9 h. Picture dated March 12, 2015 i. Picture dated March 12, 2015 10 j. Picture dated March 12, 2015 11 k. Picture dated March 12, 2015 l. Picture dated March 12, 2015 12 m. Picture dated March 12, 2015 13 n. Picture dated March 12, 2015 14 o. Picture dated March 12, 2015 p. Picture dated March 12, 2015 15 q. Picture dated March 12, 2015 16 r. Picture dated March 12, 2015 s. Picture dated March 12, 2015 17 t. Picture dated March 12, 2015 18 u. Picture dated March 12, 2015 v. Picture dated March 12, 2015 19 w. Picture dated March 12, 2015 20 x. Picture dated March 12, 2015 y. Picture dated March 12, 2015 21 z. Picture dated March 12, 2015 22 aa. Holding Cell Log dated March 12, 2015 General Chrono by D. King, dated March 23 bb. 12, 2015 Rules Violation Report for Battery on a 24 Peace Officer for incident dated March 12, 25 cc. 2015 26 27 7 Defendants’ list of exhibits in their pretrial statement appears to have mislabeled the final five 28 exhibits. The instant exhibit list keeps the ordering consistent. 1 Rules Violation Report for Possession of an Inmate Manufactured Weapon, for Incident 2 dd. dated March 12, 2015 3 Criminal Information, People v. McCoy, Bakersfield Superior Court Case No. 4 ee. MF012024A Abstract of Judgment, Assault with a 5 Deadly Weapon, People v. McCoy, Riverside Superior Court Case No. 6 ff. RIF125089, dated July 2, 2009 Abstract of Judgment, Assault with a 7 Deadly Weapon with Gun/False 8 Imprisonment, People v. McCoy, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIF130139, dated 9 gg. July 9, 2009 Abstract of Judgment, Attempted Murder, 10 People v. McCoy, Riverside Superior Court hh. Case No. RIF130139, dated July 9, 2009 11 Abstract of Judgment, Assault by a State Prisoner, April 7, 2015, People v. McCoy, 12 Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 13 ii. MA058865 Rules Violation Report for Fighting, 14 jj. incident dated October 2, 2011 Rules Violation Report for Possession of 15 Dangerous Property, incident dated August kk. 5, 2012 16 Rules Violation Report for Possession of a 17 Deadly Weapon, incident dated August 5, ll. 2012 18 Rules Violation Report for Battery on a Peace Officer with Serious Bodily Injury, 19 mm. Incid ent Date August 5, 2012 Rules Violation Report for Fighting, 20 nn. incident dated December 27, 2013 21 Rules Violation Report for Battery on an oo. Inmate incident dated September 30, 2014 22 Rules Violation Report for Fighting, pp. incident dated May 26, 2017 23 Rules Violation Report for Fermentation or Distillation of Materials incident dated 24 qq. October 12, 2017 25 Rules Violation Report for Delaying a Peace Officer in the Performance of Duties, 26 rr. incident dated March 30, 2019 Rules Violation Report for Delaying a 27 Peace Officer in the Performance of Duties, ss. incident dated August 1, 2019 28 1 Order Declaring Vexatious Litigant, McCoy v. CDCR, Kern County Superior Court 2 tt. Case No BCV-16-102728 3 Order Revoking IFP Status, McCoy v. Holguin, Eastern District Case No. 1:15-cv- 4 uu. 00768-DAD-JDP Expert Report of Tony Diaz dated 5 vv. September 7, 2021 Expert Report of R. Wilson dated 6 ww. Sept ember 7, 2021 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28