Myers v. Pulido et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Rescind Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, or in the Alternative to Allow Settlement Conference by Telephone signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/1/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DALLAS JOSHUA JAMES MYERS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
L. PULIDO,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-CV-00638-AWI.SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
RESCIND ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO ALLOW SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE
[ECF No. 43]

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Dallas J. Myers is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This case is currently set for settlement conference on June 9, 2017, before the
undersigned at California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”).

22

On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order rescinding the order and writ

23

requiring Plaintiff to be transported to CSP-Corcoran for the settlement conference. He asks,

24

in the alternative, to be allowed to appear at the settlement conference by telephone. In

25

support, Plaintiff declares that it would be unsafe for him to be housed near where Defendant

26

Pulido works or resides because Defendant Pulido previously assaulted him or had him

27

assaulted and is capable of arranging a further assault on Plaintiff. Defendant Pulido

28

currently works at the California Substance Abuse Facility-Corcoran. (“SAT-F”).
1

Plaintiff

1

believes he must remain hundreds of yards away from Defendant Pulido. CSP-Corcoran is a

2

separate facility from SAT-F.

3

Generally, the Court allows inmates to appear telephonically for all pretrial

4

proceedings. However, the Court finds that settlement conference are not productive without

5

face to face contact between the judge and the participants individually. Therefore, the Court

6

requires parties to personally appear for settlement conferences. Moreover, the Court’s past

7

experience has demonstrated that the California Department of Corrections telephone and/or

8

video conferencing system can be unreliable and insufficient for the purposes of conducting

9

a settlement conference. Thus, the Court finds that it is not practicable to allow an inmate to

10

appear by telephone at a settlement conference.

11

Plaintiff’s obligation to litigate the action will necessitate his presence at proceedings

12

at which Defendant Pulido also will be present and likely will require his temporary housing in

13

this district at CSP-Corcoran. Attendance at the settlement conference will require him to be

14

housed at CSP-Corcoran for only a short period of time.

15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order rescinding the order and writ of habeas

16

corpus ad testificandum, or to allow Plaintiff to attend the settlement conference by

17

telephone, filed May 30, 2017 (ECF No. 43), is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

June 1, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2