(PC) Williams v. Baker

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:16-cv-01540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON WILLIAMS, No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ITS 13 v. AGENCIES TO TRANSPORT PLAINTIFF WILLIAMS AND PRODUCE HIM BEFORE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THIS COURT FOR TRIAL COMMENCING ON JUNE 24, 2025 UNTIL ITS 15 Defendant. CONCLUSION 16 17 Plaintiff Shannon Williams is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this Federal Tort Claims Act case now finally proceeding to court trial solely on plaintiff’s 19 claim that he was subjected to a battery at the hands of federal correctional officers while 20 incarcerated at USP Atwater back on October 13, 2014.1 21 On April 3, 2024, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 162.) 22 Following the close of discovery, law and motion and unsuccessful settlement conferences, a 23 Final Pretrial Order was issued on December 23, 2024 and an amended order issued on December 24 26, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 204, 206.) Therein a trial confirmation hearing was set for January 14, 25 2025 and a trial date was set for February 3, 2025, before the undersigned. (Id. at 14.) On 26 January 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order and writ of habeas corpus ad 27 1 Plaintiff is now in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at USP McCreary located in 28 Kentucky. 1 testificandum directing the Warden of USP McCreary to produce plaintiff Shannon Williams in 2 the courtroom of the undersigned in Sacramento, California for the bench trial set to commence 3 February 3, 2025. (Doc. No. 216.) At the trial confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, it 4 became clear that there was a dispute as to plaintiff’s transportation to this court for purposes of 5 trial, with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) taking the position that it did not transport inmates 6 for court and was not responsible for transportation. The court discussed possible alternatives 7 with the parties at that time, including the possibility of conducting the bench trial of the case by 8 video which plaintiff raised his objection to. Ultimately, the undersigned vacated the February 3, 9 2025 trial date and continued the trial confirmation hearing to February 10, 2025. In the interim 10 the court consulted with the U.S. Marshal regarding that office’s position regarding transportation 11 of plaintiff for purposes of trial and learned that it appeared the Marshal Service would comply 12 with an order that the plaintiff be transported, if: (1) the BOP cooperated in releasing plaintiff to 13 the U.S. Marshal’s Service and (2) the BOP paid for the transportation and/or housing of plaintiff 14 in connection with the trial. At that point the court determined that it was inappropriate for it to 15 negotiate a resolution of this internal agency dispute between the various agencies (U.S. 16 Attorney’s Office, U.S. Marshal Service and BOP) under the control of the Department of Justice 17 and indicated that it would instead issue this order. 18 Therefore, the U.S. Department of Justice through its agencies is ordered to produce 19 plaintiff Shannon William in Courtroom 4, of the Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse in 20 Sacramento, California on June 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) for a bench trial in this 21 action, estimated to cover approximately three days. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) (authorizing a 22 writ where it is necessary to bring the prisoner into court “for trial”); see also Ballard v. Spradley, 23 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977).2 24 2 The court recognizes that a prisoner does not have an absolute right to be present at his trial in a 25 civil action and that several factors, including the prisoner’s need to be present and the court’s control of its own docket, must be considered. Here plaintiff is representing himself and has 26 alleged that federal correctional officers committed a battery and severely injured him while he 27 was in BOP custody at an institution located within this district. This case is now over 8 years old and has languished on the court’s docket. It has not been disposed of by way of pretrial 28 motions or settlement efforts. The only way it can be resolved is by conducting the scheduled 1 The court will entertain a motion from defendant properly noticed for hearing no later 2 | than May 19, 2025, proposing a specific alternative method by which the bench trial of this dated 3 | action could be conducted, including remotely by video or by way of a hybrid video and live 4 | proceeding. However, any such motion must be specific, supported by legal authority and filed 5 | with sufficient advance notice to allow plaintiff to respond in writing prior to the hearing on the 6 | motion. 7 The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on the parties to this action, the U.S. 8 || Marshal’s Office of this district and: 9 Mid-Atlantic Regional Office 10 U.S. Bureau of Prisons Attn. Regional Counsel 11 302 Sentinel Drive Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 12 Western Regional Office 13 U.S. Bureau of Prisons 14 Attn. Regional Counsel 7338 Shoreline Drive 15 Stockton, CA 95219 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. '7 | Dated: _ February 26, 2025 Dal A. 2, 18 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 | bench trial. That trial cannot proceed without plaintiff's involvement because he is not only > representing himself but is anticipated to be the primary witness presented in support of his claim. 5 Finally, the court notes that the defendant and BOP have known of this civil action pending in 26 | this court since 2016 and it is BOP who elected to nonetheless designate plaintiff to serve his prison sentence across the country at an institution located in Kentucky. That was certainly a 27 | decision left to the complete discretion of the BOP, but it does not provide a basis for now arguing that the expense involved in transporting plaintiff back to court for the short trial of this 28 | action is prohibitive.