Bryant v. Gallagher et al
ORDER DENYING 320 Plaintiff's Request Regarding Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/18/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,
GALLAGHER, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00446-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
REGARDING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM
(ECF No. 320)
Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against
Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant
A. Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant request regarding the issuance of the writ of
habeas corpus ad testificandum ordering his appearance at trial. First, Plaintiff requests that the
writ specify that he not be transported until Friday, May 12, 2017, in order that he may prepare
for trial with counsel at Salinas Valley State Prison on May 11, 2017. Second, Plaintiff requests
that the writ specify that he be transported back immediately following trial, but no later than
May 19, 2017, as Plaintiff believes that after ten days his cell will be reassigned and the majority
of his personal belongings and legal documents/resources will be disposed of. Finally, Plaintiff
requests that the writ specify that he not be housed at Kern Valley State Prison during transport,
due to safety concerns.
“The district court’s power to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure the
testimony of a state prisoner witness is beyond dispute.” Wiggins v. Alameda Cty., 717 F.2d 466,
468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977)); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(5). However, federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility to
state officials in the day-to-day management of prisons. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482
(1995). While the Court has issued a writ ordering the Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison to
produce Plaintiff for a specific trial date, the Court otherwise declines to dictate how the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will comply with the requirements of the
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to specify the dates and locations for transport is
HEREBY DENIED. The Court has issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum ordering
Plaintiff’s appearance at trial by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 18, 2017
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?