Chatman v. Tyner, et al

Filing 173

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 153 Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as to Plaintiff and DENYING Motion as to Inmate Darryle Williams, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/8/2010. (Sondheim, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Charles Chapman is proceeding with a prisoner civil rights action. This action is proceeding to trial on the following claims: (1) A First Amendment retaliation claim arising out of Plaintiff's placement in the SHU; (2) An Eighth Amendment claim in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant exposed him to freezing temperatures; and (3) An Eighth Amendment claim stemming from Plaintiff's placement and retention in a flooded cell. Plaintiff has filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum that requires he be brought to the courthouse for trial. As such an order is necessary to compel Plaintiff's custodian to bring him for trial, the court will grant Plaintiff's motion and issue the writ in due course. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) CHARLES CHATMAN, 1:03-CV-6636 AWI SMS P ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM AS TO PLAINTIFF AND DENYING MOTION AS TO INMATE DARRYLE WILLIAMS (Document #153)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff also requests that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Inmate Darryle Williams. Plaintiff claims that Inmate Williams was subjected to similar exposure to the cold the day after Plaintiff and was also put on contraband watch in Administrative Segregation. The documents Plaintiff has provided are insufficient for the court to require Inmate Williams's testimony at trial. First, Plaintiff has not shown that Inmate Williams has expressed a willingness to testify at a trial on Plaintiff's behalf. Second, Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient explanation as to why an unrelated incident that occurred to Inmate William is relevant to this action. Unless Plaintiff can provide an offer of proof that the same defendants were involved to somehow show a pattern, Inmate Williams's proposed testimony is not relevant. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Plaintiff is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Inmate Williams is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 January 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2