Pobursky, et al. v. Madera County, et al.

Filing 177

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 174 Ex Parte Motion for Order Commanding Attendance at Hearing signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 03/29/2010. (Flores, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JAMES S. POBURSKY, et al., 9 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 MADERA COUNTY, et al., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 action. Defendants' motion for involuntary dismissal was heard on March 26, 2010, and is currently under submission. On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff James Pobursky filed a second ex parte motion for an order commanding hearing attendance. Mr. Pobursky argues that the Madera County Jail should be ordered to allow him to appear in person because the phone service at the county jail is of "very poor quality." As discussed at the hearing, this Court does not have authority to order the Madera County Jail to pay for the expense of transporting Plaintiff where this action does not challenge the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement and therefore does not directly involve the Madera County Jail. Plaintiffs James S. and Wanda Pobursky ("Plaintiffs") are proceeding pro se in this Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07cv0611 AWI DLB ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER COMMANDING ATTENDANCE AT HEARING (Document 174)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Moreover, incarcerated prisoners routinely appear by phone for matters related to their actions. In fact, the Court allows parties and/or counsel to appear by phone for most matters. Contrary to Mr. Pobursky's concerns, he was able to communicate fully and effectively during the hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel personal attendance is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

March 29, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2