## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1703
D EN NIS E ARL B ARNES, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . W I L L I A M J. B LA CK an d M ET R OPOL I T AN P R OPE R T YAN D C ASU ALT Y I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04- cv-1317

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e , Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 21, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 12, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pl ai nti ff, i nj ured in a n auto
m obi l e a cci dent, fi l ed a di ver si ty sui t in a fed eraldi str i ct co ur t i n I ll i no i s ag ains t th e dr i ve r o fthe o th erc ara nd th e dr i ve r ’ s i ns ure r, c ha r g i ngne g l i g en ce . Af te r the ac c id en t b u t b efo re th e s u it (w h ich rem ain s p en d in g in th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ) wa s fi l e d , th e p l a i n t i ff h a d b e e n c o nvi cted i n a W i sco nsi n sta te cour t of burgl ar y and sentence d2 N o. 08

- 1703 to p ris on , w h er e h e re m ain s, m ak in g i t d ifficu lt for h im to l i ti gate h i s f ede r als ui t, e spe ci al l y b ec au se he ha s no l awy er . S o he a sk ed th e cl er ko fthe di st r i ctc o ur t to i ss ue a wri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i candu m , o r der i ngthe w ar d en of th e W isc on sin st at e p ri so n in w h ich h e is in c ar c er at e d t o d eliv er h im to th e d ist ric t c ou rtin Illin ois f o r the t r i alo fhi s d iversi tys ui t. S ec ti o n 2 24 1( c) ( 5) o fthe Ju d icia l C od e a u th or ize s t h e d i s tr ict co u rtto iss u e a w rit ofhabea s co rpus co m m an ding that the pr i sone r be del i ver ed to the cour t “ to te st ify orf ortr i al

. ” The s ecti on codi fi es the c om m on law authori ty offedera l co urts to i ssue w ri ts ofhabea s co rpus a d t e s t i f i c a n d u m an d ad pros e q ue ndu m , U nite d State s v. Larkin , 97 8 F
. 2d 964, 96 8 ( 7th C ir. 19 92 ); Jones v. Lil ly, 37F. 3d 96 4, 96 7 ( 3d Ci r . 19 94 ) , the l att erbeing used t o obt ai n the pri sone r i n or der to pros ecute hi m . These w ri ts can be used to ge t a pri sone r i nto th e d ist ric t c ou rtfrom an yw h er e in th e c ou n tr y, e.g., C arbo v. U n i t e d S t a tes , 364 U .S. 61 1, 61 9 (1 96 1); Stone v. M orris , 54 6 F .2d 73 0, 73 7 (7t h C ir. 19 76 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ous s aoui, 38 2 F .3d 45 3, 46 6 (4 th C ir. 20 04 ); R o e v. O pera tio n R e scue, 920 F. 2d 213, 21 8 n. 4 ( 3d Cir

. 19 90) , an d fr om a sta te fac ility as w ell as a fed er al on e. U nited Sta t e s v . Ga rrard , 83 F.3d 88 9, 89 3 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); U nited State s v. Cr uzJim inez , 9 77 F.2d 95 , 99 (3 d C ir. 19 92 ); Je rry v. Francis co , 632 F.2d 252, 255 (3d Cir. 1980) (per cu riam ). The di st r i ctj udg e den i ed the w r i t o n the g r o und tha t he l acke d power to i ssue i t. H e re aso ned that th e a u th ori ty to i ssue a wri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m i s l i m i ted to c as es i n whi cha pr i so ne r i s se ek i ngr el i efa g ains t be i ng co nfi ne d o r ag ains t th e co ndi ti o ns i n whi ch he i s being c onfi ned

— th a ti s , i s e i th e r s e e k i n gfe d e r a l h ab e a s c o r pusN o. 08

- 1703 3

as a pos tco nvi cti on r em edy o r c om p l ai ni ng under 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3 th atthe c o ndi ti o ns o fhi s co nfi nem en t vi o l at e hi s f ede r alr i g ht s. S ec ti o n 2 24 1( c) ( 5) i s pa r t o fthe gener alfedera l h abea s cor pu s statute, w hi ch i s i ntended to p ro vi de a re m edy aga i nst i l l ega l confi nem ent, and it is tem pti ng to sup pose as the di str i ct j ud ge did thatsubse ct i o n ( c) ( 5) a ppl i es o nl y t o a su it compla i ni ngabo ut the pr iso n er ’ s co nfinem ent, f orexam ple bec ause a pr i so ne r c an no t l i ti g at e hi s habe as c o r pus c l ai m wi th o ut o bt aini ngthe t es ti m o ny o fs o m e o th erpri son er . M an y case s i n w hi ch w ri ts ofhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m are sou gh t un d er the au th ority ofsection 22 4 1 (c )( 5) are in d ee d p ris on er su i t s . Se e, e.g ., Pen ns yl vani a Bure au of C orre cti on v. U
. S. M arshals Se rvic e, 474 U
. S. 34, 35 (1985); S to n e v. M orris , sup ra , 546 F.2d at73 7; Jones v. Lil ly, sup ra , 37 F .3 d at96 7; Sp ears v . Ch a nd ler, 672 F.2d 834 ( 11th Cir. 1982 ) ( per curi am )

. M any o ther s, however, ar e crim i nal case s, such a s D em a rest v. M a nsp eak er, 49 8 U.S

. 18 4, 18 6 (19 91 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ous s aoui, sup ra , 3 82 F
. 3d at4 66 , a nd U nited Sta tes v. C ruz -Jim inez , sup ra , 97 7 F
. 2d at 104- 05. Pri sone rs r ar el y hav e o ccasi on t o l i ti gat e a c i vi l cas e unr el at ed to i m pr i so nm en t, tho ug h we ha ve f o und o ne ap p ella te ca se th at, l ike t h is on e, w as a ru n -of-t h e-m ill civil su i t be twe enpr i va te pa r ti es , a nd the po wer t o i ssue th e w ritw as n o t qu es tio n ed , ITE L Ca pital C orp. v. D ennis M i ni ng Sup ply & E q uipm e nt, Inc . , 65 1 F
. 2d 405, 40 6-07 ( 5th C ir. 19 81 ), an d on e s u c h d ist ric t c ou rtca se . Has s o v. R etai l C redit C o ., 32 6 F . Su p p . 1 17 9, 11 81 (D . D el. 19 71 ). (In ne i th erc as e, ho wev er, was the w rit ac tu al l y i ss ue d. ) The f edera l co urts have an inter est i n bei ng abl e to gethol d of pr i so ne r s to te st i fy i n c as es b efo r e th o se c o ur ts tha t tr an -4 N o. 08

- 1703

sc en d s t h e c at eg or ies of p ris o n e r a n d cr im in al c as es . A p ri sone r m i ght be a cruci al w i tness i n a ci vi l ca se in f edera l co urt that ha d n ot hi ng to do with pri sons or c r i mi n a l l a w. The di st r i ctj udg e fur th err ul ed th ati fhe was a uthor i zed to com m and the plai nti ff’ s p re sence, neve rthel ess he w ou ld n ot d o so b u t w ou ld instea d all ow the p lai nt iff to ap p ea r in th e d ist ric t c ou rtele c tr on ica lly. Thor nt on v. Sn yd er, 4 28 F.3d 69 0, 69 7-9 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Edwards v. Loga n , 38 F
. S up p. 2d 46 3, 46 7- 68 ( W

. D. Va. 19 99) ; se e gener al l y E l-H a da d v . U nited A rab E m ira tes , 49 6 F
. 3d 658, 66 8-6 9 (D .C . C ir. 20 07 ); AirTur b i neTe ch nol ogy, Inc . v. At l as C o pc o A B , 41 0 F.3d 70 1, 71 4 (F ed . C ir. 20 05 ); Bel t r an- Tirado v . INS , 2 1 3 F .3d 11 79 , 118 5 (9 th C ir. 20 00 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. B a k er, 45 F. 3d 837 ( 4th Ci r. 199 5). T h e s tat e had o ff er ed to m ake the pla i nti ffava i l abl e by vi deo co nfe re nci ng f or th e dist ri ct cour t proce edi ng. Rule 43( a) of the civil rules p rovide s t h a t “for good cau se in com p ell ing circu m stan ces an d w ith ap p rop r iate safegua rd s, th e cou rt m ayper m i t t es ti m o ny i n o penc o ur t byc o nt empor an eo us tr an smi ss i o n f r o m a di ff er en t l o ca ti o n. ” “Wri tt i ng ” pr i so ner s t o a d ist an t c ou rte n ta ils c os t an d e ve n d an ge r, se e, e.g ., Uni t e d S t at e s v . S i l ver st ei n , 732 F.2d 133 8, 1342 ( 7th Cir. 19 84 ); Jones v. Lil ly, sup ra , 3 7 F
. 3d at 966, and the dist ri ct j ud ge de em ed thes e co m pel l i ng ci rcum sta nces f o r a l l o wi ng( wi tha ppr o pr i at e safegu ar ds) v i deo c o nf er enci ng as an a l ter nati ve. T h e p lain t i ff ap p ea ls fro m th e d en ial of t h e w rit . H is appeal al so chal l enges the distric t j ud ge’ s r efusalto a t t e mpt t o o b t a i n a l a wy e r f o r hi m u nd e r 28 U
. S

. C.N o. 08

- 1703 5 § 1 915( e) ( 1) , but that rul i ng i s no nfinal, since the case c o n t i n u es in t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d th er efo re n on ap p ea labl e. Randl ev. Victo r We l di ng Sup ply Co. , 66 4 F
. 2d 1064, 1066

- 67 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81) ( per curi am ); s ee al so M ar l e rv. A donis Health P roducts , 997 F.2d 11 41 (5t h C ir. 19 93 ); H ol tv. Fo rd, 862 F. 2 d 85 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 89 ) (en ba n c ); H enry v. C ity of D et roit, 763 F.2d 757, 7 61-64 (6th C ir. 1 985) (en ban c). So that part ofhi s a pp ealwe dism i ss f orl ack ofappellate j ur i sdi ct i o n. W el l, b utthe di st r i ctj udg e’ s den i al of the w ri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m w as als o n on fin al, si nce i t di d not t er m i nate the l i ti gat i on; so have we j uri sd ict ion of th e a p p ea l from th at d en ial? Our co ur t, as wel l as th e o th er co ur ts to ad d ress the iss u e, h as sa id t h a t ord er s g ra n tin g t h e w ritare im m ed iat ely ap p ea lab le u n d er t h e “c olla te ra l o rd er ” d oc tr in e. E .g., Ly nkv. La P o rte Sup erior C o urt N o . 2 , 7 89 F. 2d 554, 56 1 ( 7th C ir. 19 86 ); Jones v. Lil ly, sup ra , 37 F.3 d at 9 6 5

- 66 ; Ball ar d v

. Sp rad ley, 55 7 F
. 2d 476, 479 ( 5th Ci r. 19 77)

. A s e xplai ned i n the Jo nes ca se , “A rev iew of th e p ro p rie ty of th e w rit afte r fi na l j udg m en t ca nno t er as e th e bur den, r i sk, a nd expense pl aced upon the sta te ofN ew J er sey(the St ate ) f or tr an spo r tinga nd mai nt aini ngs ec ur e cus to dy o ver the p ar ale ga l p ris on er . A lth ou gh co u rt s h av e c on sis te n tly rej ecte d cl ai m s that the ti m e a nd expense ofl i ti gat i ng a su i t th atmay l at erb e r ev er se d a r e su ffi ci en t to war r an t an i m m edi ate appeal, the case sub judiceis fac tu ally dist i ngui shabl e. I n additi on t o the c ost s a sso ci at ed with tr anspor ti ng H i l l to J ones ’ ci vi l t ria l, the S tat e wil l have to bea r the r ealr i sk, o ne thatwe have unf or tunate ly experi enced i n thi s c i rcui t o n m or e than one occa si on6 N o. 08

- 1703 wi th o the r p r i s o ne r s , tha tHi l l wi l l e s c a pe f r o m i t s c us t o dy d uring h is t em p orary resp ite from prison
. . . . M oreover, th e S t a t e ’ s e n t i t l e me nt, i n th e ab s e n c e o fe x i g e n tc i r c u mst an c es , to ru n its p ris on s e ff i c i e n tly an d effe c tiv ely wi th o u to u t s i d e fe d e r a l i n t e r f e r e n c e w i l l h a v e be e n c o mp ro m ise d , ab se n t a n im m ed iat e a p p ea l.” But w e em pha si ze tha t th es e ar e ca se s i n whi chthe appeal was fro m the granto fthe w ri t ( except Lyn k, b uto ur st at ementi n tha t ca se tha t “in the fede r als y st em, the gr ant orde ni al o fwri ts ofhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m i s a pp eal abl e, ” 7 89 F. 2d at 561 ( em phasi s a d d ed ) , was d ict u m b ec au se th e ca se c on c er n ed th e d en ial of th e w rit bya n I nd iana s ta te c o ur t)

. De ni aldo es no t i m po se the co st s an d r is k s th atj us ti fy, a s th e co ur t i n Jones v. Lil ly ex pl aine d, a l l o wi nga n i m m edi at e appe al

. Thi s po i nt ar g ue s f o r a n a sy m m etric r i g hto fa ppea l unde r the co l l at er al

- o r derdo ct r i ne i n th i s cl as s o fc as es . A pr ec ede nt f orsuch a sym m etr y i s the i m m edi ate appeal abi l i ty of o r der s th atde ny a mot i o n t o r equi r e th e po st i ngo fa b o nd i n a c i vi l cas e but not ofo rder s g ra nti ng such a m oti on. 15 A C h a r l e s Al a n Wr i g h t, Ar thur R. Mi l l e r & E d wa r d H. C oo p er , Fed eral P rac tice an d P roc edu re§ 3914.2 ( 2008 ed

. ). Si m i l ar l y, a defe nd an t m ay appeal the denia l o fo ffi ci al im m u n ity im m ed iat ely , B ehren s v. P elletier, 516 U .S. 2 99, 30 7 (1 99 6), b u t n ot a gra n t. Theis v . Sm ith, 827 F. 2d 260, 26 1 (7 th C ir. 19 87 ) (p er cu ria m ); B a ird v . P a lm er, 114 F. 3d 3 9 , 4 3 ( 4 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 )

. B o th e x a mp l e s a r e e x p l i c a b l e i n t e r ms ofthe p urpose o fthe col l ate ra l

- or der doct ri ne, wh i ch perm i ts an appealfro m a nonfi nal o rd ero nl y when defe rr i ng appealco uld i nfl i ct i rr eparabl e harm on a par ty.N o. 08

- 1703 7 A n or der g ra nti ng a w ri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m is a p a r a llel ex am p le, w h er e a n im m ed iat e a p p ea l is al l owed bec ause t h e orderappeal ed fro m i s co ntended to have cre ate d a r i sk ofi rr eparable h ar m , wh i ch a denia l of the w ri t w oul d no t do. A ny harm to the pla i ntiff from the deni al c an be re m edi ed by appeal sho uld he l ose hi s su i t. W e ar e no t su r pr ised , th er efo r e, t o ha ve f o und no ca se i n w hi ch an i m m edi at e ap peal has been al l owed f ro m the denia l o fthe w ri t. Bu t 2 8 U.S

. C. § 2 253( a) m ake s the fi nal o rderi n a federa l habe as c o r pus pr oce edinga ppea l ab l e. The o r derde ny i ng the wri t in thi s dive rs i ty case , tho ugh i nter l ocuto ryfro m th e s t a n d p o i n to fth e c a s e , i s th e fi n a l o r d e r i n th e p l a i ntiff’s habeas co rpus pro ceedi ng and thus m ay see m appeal abl e be cause m ade so b y the st atute , r ega rdl ess ofthe i napp l i cabi l i ty oft h e col l ate ra l

- or der doct ri ne. Yet no ca se th at ha s all ow ed an ap p eal f r o m the gran t of a w ri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m h as r efer r ed to the sta tute. A s a m att ero fse m anti cs, se cti on 2 253( a) co uld be r ead to a ppl y t o e ve r y su bsecti o n o fs ec ti o n 2 24 1, i nc l udi ng ( c) ( 5) , tho u gh it is o dd to thi nk o fthe denia l ( orf orthat m at te r the g r an t) o fs ucha wri t as a “ fi na l o r der ” i n a habeas co rpus pro ceedi ng, si nce the peti ti oneri s no t see ki ng hi s fre edom by aski ng fo r such a w ri t a nd the re al pr o ceedi ngi s an o th erc as e al to g ethe r ( i n thi s ca se , the pl a i nt i ff’ s di v e r s i t y s uit ) wh i c h the o r de r do e s n o te nd

. Bu t the deci si ve obj ecti on t o deem i ng th e g ra nt o r denia l ofthe w ri t a fi nal or der w i thi n the sco pe ofse cti on 2 253( a) is t h at an y or d er ap p ea l a b l e u n d er th at st at u te is8 N o. 08

- 1703 als o s u b j ec t t o s ec tio n 22 53 (c )(1) (A ) if th e p et itio n e r is det aine d a s a co ns eque nc e o fa s ta te j udg m en t, a s o ur pla i nti ffi s. S o he w oul d need a ce rt i fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty to be a l l owed to pro ceed with thi s ap p eal

. H e doe s no t have such a cer ti fi cate and coul d not g et one because ( gi ven the vi deoconfer ence opti on) he ha s no t m ade “a su b st an tia l sh ow in g of th e d en ial of a co n st itu tio n al rig h t.” 28 U
. S. C

. § 2253(c)(2). C a rbo v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , i s r el evanther e. I t ho l ds that th e g eo gr ap h ica l l i m ita tio n of w rit s o f h ab ea s c or p u s in sect ion 2241(a) do es not a p p ly to w rits issu ed un d er (c) (5), eve n tho ugh the r e i s no thing i n s e c t i o n 2 2 4 1 ( a ) , j ust a s ther e i s nothi ng in sect i on 2 253( a) , to sugg estan e xcepti on f or( c) ( 5) wri ts ( i
. e. , wri ts ofhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m a nd ad p r os e q ue ndu m ). The re is a fur th erdi st i nc ti o n b etwee n thi s ca se a nd the o ne s t ha t ha ve a l l o wed a n i m m edi at e appe alfr o m the gr ant o fa w ri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s tificandum

. Those wer e al l th ird- par tyc as es . A wri t o fhabe as c o r pus i ssued to a w ar den i s l i ke a s ubpoena i ssued to a str anger to the c ase . The st ra ngeri s no t a p ar ty a n d w i l l notbe al l owed to appealfro m the fi nal deci si on, wh i ch does not ag gr i e v e h im . So h e is allow ed to ap p ea l im m ed iat ely if h e c an d em on st ra te irr e p ar ab le h ar m , eve n th ou gh h e is not f aced with the pros pect that a j ud gm ent wil l be enter ed ag ain sth im in t h e c as e t h at th e p ar ty w an ts to d ra g h im i nto. W hen a cour t decl i nes t o iss u e o r enf or ce asubpoena, the agg ri eve d l i ti gant can g et appella te re vi ew at th e e nd o fthe c as e; fr o m hi s per spe ct i ve the o r deri s no m or e fin al t h an a n y ot h er st ep in d isc ov er y. A n d so it isN o. 08

- 1703 9 here

. Our pla i nti ff w anted the j ud ge to do so m ethi ng tha t w oul d m ake i t e asi erf orhi m to l i ti gat e. A pp el l ate r evi ew ofo therinte rl ocuto rysteps that a j ud ge m i ght t ake , such a s r ec r ui tmento fc o uns el, wai ving c er ta i n fee s, o r o r der i ng the defendants to answer inter ro gat or i es, but re fu ses to tak e, m ust a w ai t the end ofthe case i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. The denia l o fa w ri t o fhabea s co rpus ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m i s o ne oftho se ste ps. The appealfro m the denia l m ust be di sm i ss ed f o r wanto fa ppel l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n. The St ate o fW i sco nsi n has fi l ed a n a m icus cur i ae bri ef ar gu in g a n ot h er j u ris d ict ion al g ro u n d for w h y t h is case m ust ter m i nate: that the w ri t of ha b ea s c or pu s ad t e s t i f i ca ndu m to com pel the del i ver y to the d i str i ct courto f a st at e pr i so ne r v i o l at es the El ev en thA m en dm en t. But the state i s no t a par tyt o o r e ve n r emot el y i nt er es te d i n the pla i nti ff’s sui t, and i s no t char ged with a vi ol ati on o f f edera l l aw . The wri t s ought i n thi s ca se w oul d i fgr anted be l i ke an ord erco m m anding a s tat e o ffi ci alwh o i s no t a par ty to a c as e be twe enpr i va te pe r so ns t o pr o duce do cum en ts in the state’s p ossess ion d u r in g the discov ery p h a s e o fth e c a s e ; s u c h o r d e r s , b e c a u s e th e y d o n o tc o mp rom ise state sovereign ty to a signif icant de gree, cf. Ten ne s s e eSt ude ntAs s i s t anc eCorp. v. Hood, 54 1 U.S

. 44 0 (20 04 ); Cali

f or ni a v. D eep Sea Res e ar ch, Inc . , 52 3 U.S

. 49 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ); Gre e n v . M ans our, 474 U .S. 64 , 71-7 3 (1 98 5); F l o r i da D ept
. of St at e v. Tre as ureSa l vors , Inc . , 4 5 8 U. S

. 6 7 0 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , do not vi ol ate the Ele venth Am endm ent. S ee In r e M i ssou ri D ep’t o f Na tura l R esou rces , 105 F.3d 434 , 4 36 (8th C ir. 1997); A llen v . Wo o dfo rd, 544 F. Su p p . 2 d 10 74 , 107 8-7 9 (E .D . C al. 2008 ).10 N o. 08

- 1703 N eve rthel ess , f orthe re aso ns s ta ted ea rl i erthe appeal m ust be , and i t her eby i s, D IS MIS S ED .

9- 12- 08