Barnett v. Norman, No. 13-15234 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive use of force by prison guards. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the guards. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by permitting three prisoner-witnesses to refuse to answer his questions because, according to the prisoner-witnesses, they were simply unwilling to testify, among other proffered explanations. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion as a matter of law by disclaiming any authority to compel the prisoner-witnesses to answer Plaintiff’s questions and by permitting the prisoners to opt out of testifying; and (2) the error was not harmless.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial in an action brought by state prisoner Troas Barnett pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force by prison guards. Barnett asserted that the district court abused its discretion by permitting three prisoner-witnesses to refuse to answer his questions because, according to the prisoner- witnesses, they had “nothing to add to this matter,” chose “not to be a party to” the trial, or were simply unwilling to testify. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion by disclaiming any authority to compel the prisoner-witnesses to answer Barnett’s questions. The panel held that where a “necessary and material” witness refuses to testify and no constitutional, statutory, or common-law rule bars the testimony, a judge must try to encourage the testimony or at least explain on the record why, in her discretion, she did nothing because, for instance, such efforts would have been futile. In this case, the magistrate judge abused her discretion as a matter of law when she permitted the prisoners to opt out of testifying. The panel further held that given these facts, it could not say that it was “more probable than not” that the jury was unaffected by the error, and therefore the error was not harmless. BARNETT V. NORMAN 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.