Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CORDERO v. GUZMAN, 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150814766 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action is set for an evidentiary hearing before the undersigned on September 14, 2015, regarding the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. On July 1, 2015, the undersigned issued a writ of ad testificandum directing the Warden of the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJDCF"), where plaintiff is confined, to produc
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for an evidentiary hearing before the undersigned on September 14, 2015, regarding the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. On July 1, 2015, the undersigned issued a writ of ad testificandum directing the Warden of the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJDCF"), where plaintiff is confined, to produce plaintiff at the evidentiary hearing on September 14, 2015. (ECF No. 74.)

On August 6, 2015 and August 10, 2015, plaintiff filed pleadings requesting that he be allowed to appear at the evidentiary hearing via video conference or Skype. (ECF Nos. 77, 78.) Plaintiff states that defense counsel, Deputy Attorney General Esquival, informed him that RJDCF has these "communication capabilities." Plaintiff alleges that he is fearful that if transferred to Sacramento for the evidentiary hearing, he will be assaulted. For the following reasons, plaintiff's requests are denied.

Plaintiff's alleged security concerns are vague and conclusory. Plaintiff does not provide any specific information in support of his security concerns. In addition, plaintiff is informed that court regulations prohibit plaintiff from appearing at the evidentiary hearing via Skype. The court has also been informed that while RJDCF has some videoconferencing equipment, this equipment is unreliable.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's requests to appear at the evidentiary hearing via videoconference or Skype (ECF Nos. 77, 78) are denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer