Menefield v. Yates et al

Filing 68

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 67 Motion to Quash Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/28/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02406-MJS PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO QUASH WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AD TESTIFICANDUM

10
11

v.
(ECF No. 67)

12
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16

James Fredrick Menefield (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner confined at Pleasant Valley State

17

Prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action initiated in state

18

court and removed to this Court on December 28, 2010 seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

19

§ 1983. This case has been stayed in its entirety pending completion of a settlement

20

conference scheduled to occur before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas at California State

21

Prison-Solano (CSP-SOL) on May 9, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (ECF No. 59.) The Court issued its

22

Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum on March 5, 2012 to secure Plaintiff’s

23

attendance at the settlement conference.

24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Previously-Issued Writ of Habeas

25

Corpus Ad Testificandum and Allow the Scheduled Settlement Conference to [be] Held at

26

Pleasant Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 67.)

27

The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is permitted by 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 2241(c)(5) in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and is committed to discretion of
-1-

1

district court. Greene v. Prunty, 938 F.Supp. 637, 638 (S.D.Cal.1996). When determining

2

whether to issue a writ of habeas ad testificandum in a civil rights proceeding brought by a

3

prisoner the district court must exercise its discretion based on consideration of such factors

4

as whether the prisoner's presence will substantially further resolution of the case, security

5

risks presented by prisoner's presence, expense of the prisoner's transportation and

6

safe-keeping and whether suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released without prejudice

7

to the cause asserted. Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480-81 (5th Cir. 1977).

8

The Court stayed this matter and issued its writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum

9

upon consideration of the above factors and the need to manage its docket and that of the

10

settlement judge. Plaintiff has provided no information that would enable the Court to

11

conclude there is good cause to change its Order and provide the relief sought. However

12

the Court, with respect to Plaintiff’s concerns about accessing his legal files, shall separately

13

issue an Amended Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to include Plaintiff’s

14

legal files.

15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Previously-Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus

16

Ad Testificandum and Allow the Scheduled Settlement Conference to [be] Held at Pleasant

17

Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 67) ) is hereby DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
ci4d6

March 28, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-