Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 325

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,

15

Case No. 11-cv-00446-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
REGARDING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM
(ECF No. 320)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

19

Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First

20

Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendant

21

A. Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment.

23

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant request regarding the issuance of the writ of

24

habeas corpus ad testificandum ordering his appearance at trial. First, Plaintiff requests that the

25

writ specify that he not be transported until Friday, May 12, 2017, in order that he may prepare

26

for trial with counsel at Salinas Valley State Prison on May 11, 2017. Second, Plaintiff requests

27

that the writ specify that he be transported back immediately following trial, but no later than

28

May 19, 2017, as Plaintiff believes that after ten days his cell will be reassigned and the majority
1

1

of his personal belongings and legal documents/resources will be disposed of. Finally, Plaintiff

2

requests that the writ specify that he not be housed at Kern Valley State Prison during transport,

3

due to safety concerns.
“The district court’s power to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure the

4
5

testimony of a state prisoner witness is beyond dispute.” Wiggins v. Alameda Cty., 717 F.2d 466,

6

468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977)); 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 2241(c)(5). However, federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility to

8

state officials in the day-to-day management of prisons. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482

9

(1995). While the Court has issued a writ ordering the Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison to

10

produce Plaintiff for a specific trial date, the Court otherwise declines to dictate how the

11

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will comply with the requirements of the

12

writ.

13
14
15

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.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 18, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2