Villareal v. County of Fresno

Filing 252

ORDER re Plaintiff's Counsel's Response to Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/03/2022.(Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
ELAINE K. VILLAREAL,
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-01410-ADA-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S
RESPONSE TO ORDER

13
v.
14
15

(ECF No. 251)
COUNTY OF FRESNO,

16

Defendant.

17
18

On September 29, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to file a notice informing the

19

Court whether a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is necessary to secure Plaintiff’s

20

attendance at the trial. (ECF No. 250). On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed his

21

response. (ECF No. 251).1

22
23
24
25
26

In the response, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he does not believe that Plaintiff’s is in
custody at this time, and thus a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is not necessary.
He also notes that this is subject to change. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “there
may be other witness[es] for whom a writ will be necessary.” (Id. at 1).
As it appears that Plaintiff is not in custody at this time, the Court will not issue a writ of

27
1

28

The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s counsel’s prompt response.
1

1
2

habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure Plaintiff’s attendance at trial.
Additionally, the Court will not issue a writ to secure any other inmates’ attendance at trial.

3

Plaintiff’s counsel does not identify any other inmate witnesses for which a writ is necessary.

4

Moreover, the deadline to file motions for attendance of incarcerated witnesses has long since

5

passed. (See ECF No. 223).

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2