Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Hickman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 10, 2009

GARRISON S. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING SPECIAL TRANSFER (Doc. 173)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This matter is set for a settlement conference on January 21, 2010, before the Honorable David O. Carter at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California. On December 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a writ directing that he be transported to the settlement conference by "special transfer," which entails a direct transfer to the courthouse by car or van. (Doc. 173.)

Absent exceptional circumstances that demand otherwise, the Court's involvement is limited to issuing an order requiring the Warden to produce Plaintiff at the time and place of the settlement conference. Because Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, decisions regarding Plaintiff's housing and transportation as they relate to effecting the writ rest in the sound discretion of the Department of Corrections. See Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials given deference on day-to-day prison operations); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1290 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that federal courts are ill equipped to manage prisons or second-guess prison administrators, and that the duty to protect inmates' rights does not confer upon the courts the power to do so).

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's concerns but the situation as presented simply does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting the extraordinary step of intervention into the details of Plaintiff's transportation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an order directing a special transfer is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091210

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.