1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 WESLEY COTTON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00568-JLT-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR v. ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED 12 WITNESSES AT TRIAL MEDINA, ET AL., 13 (ECF Nos. 140, 144, 167). Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Wesley Cotton is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 16 action filed pursuant to

. Plaintiff alleges that while he was in a locked caged 17 enclosure in the B yard of Corcoran State Prison (CSP), toxic gas from cannisters used to break 18 up a fight in the C yard drifted over and injured him. Defendant Medina failed to protect 19 Plaintiff from the gas and Plaintiff suffered from exposure. (See generally ECF No. 1). 20 Currently, it is disputed if Defendant Medina had contact with Plaintiff on March 19, 21 2022. (ECF No. 191, p. 3). Plaintiff represents that his proposed incarcerated witnesses were 22 present on Yard 3B when the incident occurred. (ECF Nos. 144, 167). Furthermore, Plaintiff 23 states that the proposed witnesses, all of which are currently incarcerated at Corcoran State 24 Prison, have agreed to voluntarily testify and possess “critical facts based on direct eyewitness 25 observation and personal knowledge of the events that occurred on March 19, 2022, on 3B 26 yard.” (ECF No. 167, p.2). Trial is currently set for January 27, 2026 (ECF No. 131). 27 28 1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs timely filed and unopposed motion for attendance of six 2 incarcerated witnesses1 (ECF No. 167) and the supplement to the motion, providing 3 declarations from each of the witnesses. (ECF No. 144). For the reasons stated below, the Court 4 grants Plaintiff’s motion. 5 “The determination whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum rests within 6 the sound discretion of the district court.” Cummings v. Adams, No. CV F 03 5294 DLB, 2006

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006). In deciding whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for 8 the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, the Court considers the following factors: (1) whether 9 the inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks 10 presented by the inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of transportation and security, and 11 (4) whether the suit can be stayed until the inmate is released without prejudice to the cause 12 asserted. Wiggins v. County of Alameda,

, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). 13 After conducting a “cost-benefit analysis regarding whether the inmate[s] should come 14 to court,”

, at *3, the Court has determined that the inmates should be made 15 available to testify at trial. The first factor weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. Each of the witnesses 16 provided a declaration under the penalty of perjury, which recounts what each witness 17 personally viewed the incident at issue in the case. Furthermore, some of the witnesses identify 18 Defendant as being present during the incident and having contact with Plaintiff, and some of 19 the witnesses were exposed to the gas that was used during the incident. (See ECF No. 144). 20 Plaintiff has demonstrated that the presence of the witnesses will aid in the resolution of this 21 case. 22 The remaining factors also support Plaintiff. Because the motion is unopposed, nothing 23 suggests that these inmates present particular security concerns or exceptional transportation 24 costs. And given the age of this case, staying it until all of the incarcerated witnesses are 25 released would be prejudicial. 26

27 1 Cesario Medina, Clifford Lewis, Christopher G. Valencia, Duncan Reynard, Paul Fielder, Gino 28 Brewer. eee eee eee nn nnn oon ne nnn ne NE OS ISIE ED

1 Thus, the Court finds that Medina, Lewis, Valencia, Reynard, Fielder and, Brewer 2 || should be provided the opportunity to testify at trial. 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that : 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, ECF No. 167, is 5 GRANTED.* 6 2. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether the witnesses should 7 testify live or remotely and file a statement no later than November 26, 2025, 8 regarding whether they both wish to proceed by remote testimony. However, in the 9 absence of agreement, the Court will require transportation of all witnesses for live 10 testimony. 11 3. The Court will, in due course, issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to have 12 Cesario Medina, Clifford Lewis, Christopher G. Valencia, Duncan Reynard, Paul 13 Fielder, Gino Brewer be made available to testify at the trial. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘6 |! Dated: _ November 20, 2025 [spe ey —— 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lho ? Tn ruling on this motion, the Court is not making any evidentiary rulings. Nothing in this order prevents 28 || Defendants from raising objections to the testimony of the witnesses at trial or in an appropriate pretrial motion.