Elseth v. Speirs, et al

Filing 197

ORDER DENYING 196 Application filed by Allen Elseth signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/7/11. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

ALLEN ELSETH, by his guardians
ad litem, Roger Elseth and
Partricia Ann Elseth,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

Deputy Probation Officer Jeff
Elorduy, individually,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-2890-GEB-CKD
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM AND
VIDEO APPEARANCE

Defendant.
________________________________

14
15

On November 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for a

16

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. (ECF No. 196.) When determining

17

whether to issue this writ, a district court considers “such factors as

18

whether

19

resolution of the case, the security risks presented by the prisoner's

20

presence, the expense of the prisoner's transportation and safekeeping,

21

and whether the suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released

22

without prejudice to the cause asserted.” Wiggins v. Cty. of Alameda,

23

717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983).

the

prisoner's

presence

will

substantially

further

the

24

Plaintiff’s application does not address the stay factor, and

25

fails to sufficiently address the amount of expenses involved with the

26

following: his transportation, his incarceration in California, and his

27

security

28

represented that he will pay all expenses involved with these matters,

during

trial

proceedings.

1

Further,

since

Plaintiff

has

1

and its is assumed that any involved jail, prison and law enforcement

2

agency requires payment before any service is rendered, Plaintiff shall

3

include when payment will be advanced, to whom, and the amounts thereof,

4

should Plaintiff ultimately decide to file a proposed writ addressing

5

the matters required to be addressed.

6

application is DENIED.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s writ

7

Further, Plaintiff’s alternative request for appearance via

8

video transmission is reconsidered in light transportation and security

9

costs which could involve a substantial amount of money. See Maurer v.

10

Pitchess, 530 F. Supp. 77, 81 (C.D. Cal. 1981) (discussing such costs

11

and concluding that the costs for prisoner’s appearance arrangements

12

could be substantial). However, Plaintiff has failed to show that he has

13

made arrangements to provide testimony at trial by video transmission

14

with the Nevada state prison where he is currently incarcerated and with

15

this court’s audio visual technician; nor has he shown that he has

16

addressed the concern Defendant expressed at a prior hearing regarding

17

Defendant’s ability to provide Plaintiff with documents used during

18

Defendant’s examination of Plaintiff. Therefore, this request is denied.

19

Dated:

December 7, 2011

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2