Harris v. Atchley

Background

Michael Jay Harris asked the court to enjoin, or stop, his transfer from sensitive needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison to a merged yard at High Desert State Prison. The court had granted a temporary restraining order blocking the transfer, held an initial hearing about a possible preliminary injunction, ordered defendants to provide additional statistics, and scheduled a second preliminary-injunction hearing.

Defendants’ supplemental filing stated that the High Desert merged yard housed 846 inmates, including 127 inmates with an “R” suffix. It also reported three violent incidents in the preceding six months involving inmates whose crimes were similar to Harris’s.

Remote testimony

Harris filed an ex parte motion seeking permission for live, remote testimony from an inmate at a sensitive-needs and “R” suffix institution. The court recognized that such an inmate’s experience might have some relevance, but concluded that the experience of the at least 124 “R” suffix inmates at High Desert who had not been victims of inmate-on-inmate violence would also be relevant. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its value is substantially outweighed by risks such as confusion, delay, or wasted time, the court denied the request. The court permitted Harris to file a written statement from the proposed witness instead.

Subpoenas

Harris also asked the court to order the United States Marshals to serve two subpoenas on Salinas Valley officials. He said the witnesses were needed to show that he had been hindered in litigating his claims and to address why his removal from an educational program was not discriminatory or retaliatory. The subpoenas referred to an “educational override” that Harris had previously sought to use to prevent his transfer.

The court explained that subpoena service for a plaintiff proceeding without prepayment of filing fees is subject to limits concerning relevance, burden, and expense. It concluded that the information Harris intended to obtain from the two officials was irrelevant and denied the request that the Marshals serve the subpoenas. The court also noted that claims concerning the educational override had already been dismissed with prejudice in an earlier order.

Disposition

The court denied Harris’s ex parte motion for remote testimony and denied his request for Marshals service of the subpoenas. Harris’s response to defendants’ supplemental brief remained due September 18, 2023. The order disposed of Docket No. 61; it did not rule on the ultimate request for a preliminary injunction.