Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 28, 2014

WILLIAM JAMES, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants.

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.

On September 17, 2013, the court ordered the parties in this case to participate in a mandatory settlement conference and directed them to inform the court as to whether they wished to waive any disqualification and proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wished to be referred to the court's mediation program. Both parties have consented to the participation of the undersigned magistrate judge. However, defense counsel has now objected to a mandatory settlement conference and informed the court that the parties recently participated in an unsuccessful private mediation. According to defense counsel, the mediation took place before an extremely experienced mediator who was unable to bridge the substantial gap between the parties' respective settlement positions.

In the interest of judicial economy, the court will not require the parties to participate in a settlement conference. Instead, the court will re-set a schedule for this litigation. By this order, the parties will be directed to file pretrial statements in accordance with the schedule set forth below. In addition to the matters already required to be addressed in the pretrial statement in accordance with Local Rule 281, plaintiff will be required to make a particularized showing in his pretrial statement in order to obtain the attendance of witnesses. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the procedures set forth below may result in the preclusion of any and all witnesses named in his pretrial statement.

At the trial of this case, the plaintiff must be prepared to introduce evidence to prove each of the alleged facts that support the claims raised in the lawsuit. In general, there are two kinds of trial evidence: (1) exhibits and (2) the testimony of witnesses. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to produce all of the evidence to prove the case, whether that evidence is in the form of exhibits or witness testimony. If the plaintiff wants to call witnesses to testify, plaintiff must follow certain procedures to ensure that the witnesses will be at the trial and available to testify.

I. Procedures for Obtaining Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses Who Agree to Testify Voluntarily

An incarcerated witness who agrees voluntarily to attend trial to give testimony cannot come to court unless this court orders the warden or other custodian to permit the witness to be transported to court. This court will not issue such an order unless it is satisfied that:

1. The prospective witness is willing to attend;
and
2. The prospective witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts.

With the pretrial statement, a party intending to introduce the testimony of incarcerated witnesses who have agreed voluntarily to attend the trial must serve and file a written motion for a court order requiring that such witnesses be brought to court at the time of trial.

The motion must:

1. State the name and address of each ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.