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
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?