Menefield v. Yates et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02406-MJS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO QUASH WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 67)
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
James Fredrick Menefield (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner confined at Pleasant Valley State
Prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action initiated in state
court and removed to this Court on December 28, 2010 seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This case has been stayed in its entirety pending completion of a settlement
conference scheduled to occur before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas at California State
Prison-Solano (CSP-SOL) on May 9, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (ECF No. 59.) The Court issued its
Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum on March 5, 2012 to secure Plaintiff’s
attendance at the settlement conference.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Previously-Issued Writ of Habeas
Corpus Ad Testificandum and Allow the Scheduled Settlement Conference to [be] Held at
Pleasant Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 67.)
The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is permitted by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(5) in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and is committed to discretion of
district court. Greene v. Prunty, 938 F.Supp. 637, 638 (S.D.Cal.1996). When determining
whether to issue a writ of habeas ad testificandum in a civil rights proceeding brought by a
prisoner the district court must exercise its discretion based on consideration of such factors
as whether the prisoner's presence will substantially further resolution of the case, security
risks presented by prisoner's presence, expense of the prisoner's transportation and
safe-keeping and whether suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released without prejudice
to the cause asserted. Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480-81 (5th Cir. 1977).
The Court stayed this matter and issued its writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum
upon consideration of the above factors and the need to manage its docket and that of the
settlement judge. Plaintiff has provided no information that would enable the Court to
conclude there is good cause to change its Order and provide the relief sought. However
the Court, with respect to Plaintiff’s concerns about accessing his legal files, shall separately
issue an Amended Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to include Plaintiff’s
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Previously-Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ad Testificandum and Allow the Scheduled Settlement Conference to [be] Held at Pleasant
Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 67) ) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 28, 2012
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?