Smith v. Plummer

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION 57 . Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2010)

Download PDF
Smith v. Plummer Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SHERIFF GREGORY AHERN Respondent. / United States District Court RONALD EDWARD SMITH, Petitioner, No. C-06-1637 MMC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Before the Court is petitioner Ronald Edward Smith's "Ex Parte Application for Order Directing Respondent to Produce Petitioner for Hearing" ("Application"), filed November 9, 2010, whereby petitioner requests an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243, directing respondent Alameda County Sheriff to produce petitioner at the November 19, 2010 hearing on respondent's Motion to Permit Transfer of Custody. Respondent has filed opposition, to which petitioner has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court rules as follows. The authority cited by petitioner, Johnson v. Eisentanger, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), concerns the production of a petitioner at a hearing on a habeas petition, not a collateral proceeding such as a hearing on a motion to permit transfer under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner cites no authority requiring this Court to order respondent to produce petitioner at a hearing on a matter such as that currently scheduled before this Court, nor has he otherwise shown good cause for such an order. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES petitioner's Application. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 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?