McFarland v. Brooks et al
ORDER granting 69 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot re 63 Second MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Takei McFarland, granting 64 MOTION to Continue Trial (Unopposed) filed by Takei McFarland; withdrawing 68 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued; withdrawing 67 Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum, Order on Motion to Continue. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 11/1/16. (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
STANLEY BROOKS, et al.
On October 28, 2016, Takei McFarland filed a “Second Motion for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Ad Testificandum,” Doc. #63, and a motion to continue the trial in this case currently set
for November 7, 2016, Doc. #64. In his motion for writ, McFarland represented that he is
currently incarcerated by the State of Mississippi at the Simpson County Technical Violation
Center, that he will be incarcerated as of the current trial date, and that he is expected to be
released on November 14, 2016. Referencing his separately-filed motion to continue the trial,
McFarland asked, if trial is not continued, for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum
commanding his appearance at trial. In his motion to continue, McFarland asked that “trial be
continued to a date after November 14, 2016,” to “obviate the need to have [him] transported to
trial from custody by the State of Mississippi … [and to] further allow [his] counsel more ready
access to [him] to prepare for trial.”
On October 31, 2016, this Court granted the motion for writ and denied the motion for
continuance as moot. Doc. #67. In the order, the Court noted that its denial of the continuance
was “subject to reconsideration pending the availability of all parties and their counsel for trial
on January 11, 2017.” The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum the same day.
On November 1, 2016, McFarland filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 31
order. Doc. #69. In the motion, McFarland represents that his counsel is now available for trial
on January 11, 2017,1 and that all parties are agreeable to the continuance sought, and asks that
“[i]n the event trial is continued … the Court’s Order provide that the subpoenas will be
continued to the new trial date, so that Plaintiff may avoid the necessity of re-serving witnesses.”
Id. at ¶¶ 6–8.
Upon consideration, it is ORDERED:
McFarland’s motion for reconsideration  is GRANTED;
2. This Court’s October 31, 2016, order  and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum
 are WITHDRAWN;
3. McFarland’s motion to continue  is GRANTED;
4. Trial in this matter is CONTINUED until January 11, 2017, and a notice resetting
trial will be entered accordingly;
5. The subpoenas served to date by the parties are CONTINUED until the date of trial;2
6. McFarland’s second motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum  is
DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of November, 2016.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
All parties and counsel, except for McFarland’s counsel, previously advised the Court of their availability for trial
on January 11, 2017.
The parties are responsible for advising their subpoenaed witnesses of the new trial date in light of the continuance
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?