Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01451-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1451 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a “request for judicial intervention” in which

plaintiff makes no specific request for court action. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. 

On August 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for writ of habeas corpus ad

testificandum for plaintiff’s presence at trial. Plaintiff need not request a writ for his own

presence at trial. The court will issue a writ at the appropriate time. Plaintiff also asks that he be

housed at Folsom State Prison during trial. However, plaintiff has not shown any reason for the

court to issue such an order. Finally, plaintiff asks that he be allowed to bring various religious

and legal materials with him to trial. Plaintiff has not shown that the issuance of such an order is 

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01451-JKS-KJM Document 85 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

necessary or that the court has the authority to issue such an order without a showing of

irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376

(9thCir. 1985).

Finally, on July 31, 2006, plaintiff filed another “motion for judicial

intervention”; on September 25, 2006, he filed additional arguments and exhibits in support of

this “motion.” Again, plaintiff fails to ask that the court make any specific orders. The court

construes plaintiff’s motion as seeking the return of “about 100 pounds” of legal material. 

Plaintiff has not indicated why he needs immediate access to this material at this stage in

plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 27, 2005 “request for judicial intervention” is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s August 3, 2005 “application for writ of habeas corpus ad

testificandum” is denied; and 

3. Plaintiff’s July 31, 2006 “motion for judicial intervention” is denied.

DATED: November 20, 2006.

buck1451.31

Case 2:02-cv-01451-JKS-KJM Document 85 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2