Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 296

ORDER VACATING 274 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Directing Transport of Inmate Rufus B. Levels, CDCR #F-62510; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Serve Order by E-Mail on High Desert State Prison signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/13/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. GALLAGHER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:11-cv-00446-BAM (PC) ORDER VACATING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM DIRECTING TRANSPORT OF INMATE RUFUS B. LEVELS, CDCR #F-62510 (ECF No. 274) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO SERVE ORDER BY E-MAIL ON HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON 17 On September 28, 2016, the Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum directing the 18 19 transport of Rufus B. Levels, inmate, CDCR #F-62510, for trial on October 17, 2016, as a witness in 20 this matter. (ECF No. 274.) Now, for good cause shown, the Court has vacated the October 17, 2016 21 trial date. Therefore, the transportation writ for Inmate Levels shall be vacated. 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. 24 The writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum directing the production of Rufus B. Levels, inmate, CDCR #F-62510, issued on September 28, 2016, is vacated; 2. 25 The Clerk’s Office shall serve a courtesy copy of this order by e-mail on the litigation 26 coordinator at High Desert State Prison, and on the litigation coordinator of any other institution(s) 27 which require this information; and, 28 /// 1 1 3. The Clerk’s Office shall serve a courtesy copy of this order via mail on Inmate Levels. 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara October 13, 2016 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?