Chaiken

(PC) Bruce v. Chaiken

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 21, 20192:15-cv-00960California3,368 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VINCENT BRUCE, No. 2: 15-cv-960 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SHAMA CHAIKEN, et al., Defendants. 16 I. Introduction Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on February 10, 2020. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for incarcerated witnesses to be brought to trial. (ECF No. 110.) Defendants oppose this motion, in part. (ECF No. 112.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. II. Legal Standard In determining whether to grant plaintiff’s motions for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether the inmate’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case, (2) the security risks presented by the inmate’s presence, (3) the expense of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.