Blacher v. Johnson et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 89 Motion to amend Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/23/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON BLACHER, 12 Case No. 1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO AMEND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM v. 13 S. JOHNSON, 14 (ECF No. 89) Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Marlon Blacher, proceeding pro se and in forma pauper, filed this civil rights 17 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 16, 2012. This matter is currently set for a 19 settlement conference before the undersigned on April 18, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. 20 On March 9, 2017, an order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued commanding the 21 warden to transport Plaintiff for the settlement conference. On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 22 motion requesting the March 9, 2017 order be amended to allow him to make a telephonic or 1 23 video appearance at the settlement conference. 24 1 Plaintiff’s filings contain archaic legal and irrelevant verbiage, commonly associated with the common law 25 pleading practice, that serves no purpose in modern pleading practice. Some of plaintiff’s verbiage is not even common law verbiage and is simply irrelevant Plaintiff is advised that common law pleading and procedural 26 practice has long been abolished by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1937, and it is no longer necessary to recite archaic and complex legal terms in pleadings filed with the Court. See 5 Charles Alan Wright & 27 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1181 (3d ed. 2012) (discussing modern “simple and elastic pleading and motion procedure ... placing a minimum emphasis on form” and the abolishment of “ancient 28 procedural dogma”). 1 Plaintiff argues that the Court should allow him to appear by telephone or video pursuant 1 2 to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(f)(1). Section 1997e(f)(1) applies to inmates challenging their conditions of 3 confinement and provides that ‘[t]o the extent practicable” pretrial proceedings in which an 4 inmate’s participation is required or permitted shall be conducted by telephone, video 5 conference, or other telecommunications technology without removing the inmate from the 6 facility in which he is confined. Generally, the Court allows inmates to appear telephonically for all pretrial proceedings, 7 8 however, the Court finds that settlement conference are not productive without the ability to have 9 face to face contact with the participants. For this reason, the Court requires parties to personally 10 appear for settlement conferences. Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to appear by video, 11 however, the Court’s past experience has demonstrated that the California Department of 12 Corrections video conferencing system can be unreliable; and therefore, is insufficient for the 13 purposes of conducting a settlement conference. Therefore, the Court finds that it is not 14 practicable to allow an inmate to appear by video conference at a settlement conference Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to alter or 15 16 amend the order and writ is DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 23, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?