The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM
[Re Docket No. 72]
Roy A. Montes ("plaintiff") petitions the court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651(a) & 2241(c)(5). For the reasons set forth below, the 19 court conditionally denies plaintiff's petition, provided that defendants enable plaintiff to testify 20 remotely by videoconference. 21
Plaintiff Roy A. Montes is currently an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison. On May 26, 2008, while incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, plaintiff attempted to kick defendant officer Rafalowski, while Rafalowski was escorting him from the shower back to his cell. Plaintiff alleges 25 that defendant responded to this attempted kick with excessive force, repeatedly punching plaintiff in 26 the face and slamming plaintiff's head against the concrete floor. Plaintiff filed the instant action on 27
March 6, 2009, asserting violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2011, asserting three additional California tort claims: assault, 2 battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4 prison term in November 2005, plaintiff has incurred seven rules violations for violent interactions 5 with other inmates and correctional officers. Plaintiff has also received various CDCR mental health 6 services since beginning his prison term and was, at the time of the relevant incident involving 7 defendant Rafalowski, housed in the Psychiatric Services Unit, which offered the highest level of 8 security housing available in the CDCR system. Plaintiff is no longer in the Psychiatric Services 9
Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for murder. In the six-and-a-half years since beginning his Unit, and is currently housed with the general prison population, in a level IV security facility.
1989), a district court has discretion to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure the 14 prisoner's presence in court so that he may testify at trial. Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 15 466, 468 f.n. 1 (9th Cir. 1983); Greene v. Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 638 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Although 16 plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Kern County, which is within the Eastern District of California, 17 the court may, in its discretion, issue a writ "to produce a person incarcerated outside of the district 18 to testify." Greene, 938 F. Supp. at 638. When determining whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus 19 ad testificandum, the Ninth Circuit has directed courts to weigh the following four Ballard Factors: 20
(1) whether the prisoner's presence will substantially further the resolution of the case; (2) the 21 security risks presented by the prisoner's presence; (3) the expense of the prisoner's transportation 22 and safekeeping; and (4) whether the suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released without 23 prejudice to the cause asserted. Wiggins, 717 F.2d at 468 f.n. 1 (citing Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d (enumerating a list of factors analogous to those in Ballard); Greene,938 F. Supp. at 639 (explaining that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is appropriate when "the probative value of
While "imprisonment suspends the plaintiff's usual right to be personally present at judicial proceedings brought by himself or on his behalf," Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770 (9th Cir. 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977)); see also Muhammad v. Warden, 849 F.2d 107, 113 (4th Cir. 1988) the testimony justifies the expense and security risk associated with transporting an inmate-witness 2 to court from a correctional facility"). 3
In applying these four factors, the court notes at the outset that a stay is not appropriate in 4 this case, given that plaintiff is currently serving a life sentence. Thus, the court turns its attention 5 exclusively to factors one through three. When security concerns and expense become substantial 6 enough considerations, such that they counsel against issuing a writ of habeas corpus ad 7 testificandum, other district and circuit courts are increasingly looking to videoconferencing as a 8 viable alternative to live testimony. See Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690, 698 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the trial by 10 videoconference" when hearing the plaintiff inmate's §1983 action against corrections officials); 11
Twitty v. Ashcroft, 712 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33 (D. Conn. 2009) ("the court finds that expense and 12 security concerns outweigh the plaintiff's interest in physically appearing at trial, particularly in light 13 of the availability of a reasonable ...