Document: 474 U.S. 34 106 S.Ct. 355 88 L.Ed.2d 189 PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF CORRECTION, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE et al. No. 84-489. Argued Oct. 15, 1985. Decided Nov. 18, Syllabus A Pennsylvania state prisoner temporarily confined in the Philadelphia County jail brought suit Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various county officials, alleging that they had beaten and harassed him. The court assigned action to a Magistrate, who issued writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum for producing prisoners, including plaintiff, as witnesses. order directed Wardens transport prisoners nearest federal court, then United States Marshals Service (respondent) from court. Respondent's motion reconsideration latter part was denied. Appeals reversed pertinent part, holding All Writs Act did not confer power on compel noncustodians bear expense prisoner-witnesses. Held: There is no statutory authority question. Pp. 37-43. (a) Title 28 §§ 567 569(b) merely enumerate respondent's obligations obey court's mandate if so orders. issue such mandates must derive some independent source. 38-39. (b) statutes—28 2241(c)(5) 2243—do authorize direct writ parties do have custody prisoner. evidence language 2241 2243, their legislative history, or common-law courts are empowered cause third neither custodians nor litigation cost Nor does Carbo v. States, 364 611, 81 338, 5 329 (1961), support an expansive reading conferred upon district by testificandum. (c) one at issue. An examination Act, its this Court's past interpretations all conclusion. Although empowers fashion extraordinary remedies when need arises, it them hoc whenever compliance with procedures appears inconvenient less appropriate. 40-43. 737 F.2d 1283 (CA3 1984), affirmed. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, which BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion. Leroy S. Zimmerman, Harrisburg, Pa., petitioner. Mark Irving Levy, Washington, D.C., respondents. Justice POWELL Court. 1 question presented whether may courthouse testify officials. 2 * In June 1980, Richard Garland officials Eastern Pennsylvania, he been defendant deputy sheriffs prison guards. At time suit, incarcerated jail, but subsequently transferred facility. Magistrate disposition merits. 3 December 1982, produce five witnesses, plaintiff Garland. time, correctional facility Huntingdon, approximately 220 miles Philadelphia. other four witnesses were facilities over 100 orders inmates commanded (Marshals)1 maintain during trial. unsuccessfully moved portion guard 4 On Marshals' appeal denial, Third Circuit "to non-custodians [the production witnesses] simply because access deeper pocket." Sullivan, 1283, 1287 (1984) (emphasis original).2 find, however, has take while those connection judicial proceedings. Ibid. Finally, held could trial made specific finding special security risks required prisoner-witnesses be away courthouse. Id., 1289. Commonwealth Bureau Correction (Commonwealth) petitioned certiorari can command share responsibility transporting State any official party.3 Because case presents recurrent problem Circuits differ, we granted writ. 469 1206, 105 1166, 84 318 (1985). We find there outside normal course trial, accordingly affirm. II 6 argues obligation lawful courts, 569(b), statutorily authorized expend funds purpose 567. It also contends these provisions recognize seek assistance Marshals. Two summarily agreed. Ford Allen, 728 1369, 1370 (CA11 1984) (per curiam ); Ballard Spradley, 557 476, 481 (CA5 1977). relied imposing Wiggins Alameda, 717 466 (CA9 1983), cert. denied sub nom. California Dept. Corrections 465 1070, 104 1425, 79 749 (1984); Carballo, 577 404 (CA7 1978). only deny assist 7 Sections courts' writs, therefore look statute see transportation III 8 reasoned Magistrate's amounted testificandum4 properly custodian, basis noncustodian. agree. 9 Since 1867, incorporated "shall person whose party detained." Feb. 5, ch. 28, 14 Stat. 386 added). See re Thaw, 166 F. 71, 74-75 1908). custodian "make return said bring before judge writ." Congress preserved unambiguous directive throughout subsequent revisions, current states having 2243. Section 2243 specifically provides "the whom shall hearing body 10 thus expressly commands his extends duty other. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 81(a)(2) ("The . detained"). suggest conclude courthouse.5 IV 11 1651,6 confers litigation. "deluge civil rights actions" calls "creative" use alleviate drain States' fiscs courthouses. 12 true consistently construed necessary appropriate effectuate prevent frustration previously exercise jurisdiction otherwise obtained." New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 172, 98 364, 372, 54 376 (1977). This supplemental powers limited situations where "necessary" "in sense physically discharge appellate duties." Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 273, 63 236, 239, 87 268 (1942). our decisions construing convinces us, prisons ordinary courts. 13 originally codified Judiciary 1789, 81-82, provided "all scire facias, corpus, statute, respective jurisdictions, agreeable principles usages law." 15 Our early view scope provision filling interstices gaps threatened thwart proper jurisdiction. McClung Silliman, Wheat. (19 U.S.) 598, L.Ed. 340 (1821); McIntire Wood, Cranch (11 504, 420 (1813). limitation especially significant testificandum: 1789 same section provision. 16 original phrase "not statute" remained until 1948. history scant, consolidated into 1651 "necessary changes phraseology" without substantive amendment. H.R.Rep. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A144 (1947); id., 5. did, new "expressive construction recently placed provision] Supreme Alkali Export Assn. [v. 325 196, 65 1120, 89 1554 (1945) ]." A145. Alkali, rejected enable review lower determination lie express Chief Stone wrote: 17 "The used substitute appeal; where, here, scheme permits interlocutory final judgment, permissible face plain indication avoid piecemeal reviews." U.S., 203, S.Ct., 1125. 18 dropped 1948 consolidation, apparently intended leave substantially unchanged. That intention favorable reference convince us phraseology mark congressional expansion issuance "appropriate" 19 Nevertheless, Commonwealth, relying supra, 171, well Harris Nelson, 394 286, 299, 1082, 1090, 22 281 (1969), Price Johnston, 334 266, 282, 68 1049, 1058, 92 1356 (1948), insists mere statement would appropriate." As summarized margin below, cases clearly distinguishable lend little Commonwealth's argument.7 20 residual source covered statute. Where addresses particular hand, authority, controlling. categorically rule out reliance procuring safeguarding exceptional circumstances show inadequacy traditional serious risks. circumstances, appropriate" prisoners. open availability require it. V 21 conclude, least absence magistrate Accordingly, affirm Circuit. ordered. 23 dissenting. 24 case. involves dispute between Ordinarily, marshals serve close harmonious relationship. To sure, responsibilities marshal—an office serves both Executive Judicial Branches—can give rise administrative problems.1 Customarily problems resolved voluntary, cooperative basis, either individual circuit, high-level discussions Branches.2 Open disputes rare, appropriately so. 25 should is, recurring amicably, marshals3 States.4 majority notes that, "exceptional circumstances," ante, 43, I entirely majority's holding, absent authorizes action. my view, conclusion ignores importance tradition defining relationship Judiciary. 26 History marshal narrowly circumscribed suggests. direction patterned after sheriff,5 define judge's particularity. Instead, 27 appointed each district.6 primary marshal, expressed attend circuit sitting therein, sit." carrying execute precepts him," given appoint "one more deputies," deputies removable will judge. Read background sheriff existed common law, evident assumed ample call duties office. variety duties, subject Branch,7 1861 gave Attorney General marshals.8 Furthermore, 1969 formalized control through establishment Office Director Service.9 Under framework, owe Branch Thus, although points out, General, 36, n. 1, remain instructions court.10 Indeed, considered, passed, legislation lodge exclusively Branch.11 yet divested since shared 1861. 29 Throughout played important role administration justice. most dramatic exploits called mind references names like Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, David Neagle, events enforcement 1960's, area protection process, courtroom itself, service judges. forum"12 does, encompass than two activities. 30 Many aspects set forth detail Congress. decided formal proceedings preceded Marshal's cry "Oyez, Oyez." Congress, Service, different Decisions kind concerning justice 31 When way, provide participant, escort lockup building courtroom, exercising manner certainly "agreeable law" Act.13 "writ." directives derived rather long aspect officers. 32 These daily instances reflect conventional marshal. closeness derived, assertion unwilling nature mission administer represents unusual mechanisms addressing disagreements failed. holds answer found explicit delineation authority. standard resolving dispute. controlling reasonably related sound discretion.14 33 noted, recognizes circumstances" 43. even respect witness, might make witness though available comparable situation. constitutes inherent not, opinion, answered facts case, factors ordering discretion. First, considerable expertise courts;15 moreover, acknowledge state, federal, appropriate.16 Second, instance, responsible courthouse.17 Third, frequently house local jails, and, indeed, developed programs end.18 Fourth, requiring entire impose unfair financial hardship Pennsylvania.19 derives support, disclosed record,20 strong policy favoring cooperation courts.21 believe discretion 35 confrontation arise engage combat. judges able resolve difficulties. If unable to, Conference asked intervene. recurring, national disagreement, seems be, address fail, issues historic reflected me upheld 36 fully consistent respectfully dissent. within Government. Marshal President, 561(a), supervision see, e.g., 562, 567, 569(c), 571(a) (d), funded Department appropriations, Judge Becker concurred believing bound (1821), He hoped "find statutes adapt fit needs changing times, now what, not." F.2d, 1292 (footnote omitted). Atkins, designation Southern Florida, dissented propriety commanding us. conceded parties. detained", Carbo, contained territorial "[w]rits corpus," 2241(a), applied subjiciendum, prosequendum. similarly apply instead Great Writ, subjiciendum. Carbo's procedure requirements prosequendum 2241(a). 615-618, 340-43. But testificandum, application actual initial codification present. justifies today. part: established aid jurisdictions (1977), party, Company, Investigation installing devices warrant register numbers dialed certain telephones. filled gap granting capable devices. instant contrast, already argue own appeal, mechanism achieve "rational ends 1058. Price, alternative way present sufficient. Similarly, 1092, means providing effective proceeding except Telephone, afforded resort fill interstices. reasoning indisputably prisoner-witness. Report Comptroller Dilemma: Serving Branches Government (1982). See, Oversight Hearing Subcommittee Courts, Civil Liberties, Administration House Committee Judiciary, 99th (1985) (citing agreement THE CHIEF JUSTICE regarding security); contract program); Hearings H.R. 7039 97th 2d 175 (1982) allocation marshals). 1369 denied, 1978); 476 ("We decry inability matters fairly equitably. ."). Justice, Then Now (1978) ("the carried English law sheriff, possessing complete bailiwick" ). objections lead conflicts sheriffs. Annals Cong. 826 (1789) (statement Rep. Stone) ("in tribunals, connected, mischiefs happen. Will justifiable delivering up kept sheriff"). 1792, several districts deputies, executing laws states," 265—a substance, exists today, 570. G. Atkinson, Sheriff-Law (1861) immediate officer Courts Westminster writs. [W]hether comes him, awarded lie, cannot doubt, validity"). title example British colonial vice-admiralty L. Ball, Mexico Arizona Territories (1978). C. Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty American Revolution (1960) (In "[t]he marshals' similar sheriff: serving processes, taking goods people, decrees court"). "Sec. 27. And further enacted, term years, pleasure, sit. district, execution duty, occasion, pleasure either; enters office, become faithful performance same, himself jointly severally, good sufficient sureties, inhabitants freeholders approved judge, sum twenty thousand dollars, enter appointment, following oath office: 'I, A.B., solemnly swear affirm, faithfully returns make, things truly, malice partiality, perform (or marshal's deputy, be) , continuance fees. So help God.' " 87. 2-3 (1981). supra ("On August 2, 1861, act (ch. 37, 285) attorneys general superintendence General. explicitly repealed prior affecting marshals"). 10. 569(a) appeals may, session 7039, 141. raison d'etre forum criminal litigation." 481. statute's forms quoted 40-41, 6. Four considered federal-court testimony viewed discretion, located cited 3, supra. transported 130,000 fiscal year 1984. Hearing, Tr. Oral Arg., 38-40. 3. 16. App. Pet. Cert. 58a-59a. ordered Detention Center State, parts Center. 58a. costs imposed requirement "significant," 59a. Determining "equitable reasonable," ibid., refrain additional emphasized frequent trips often housed trials. 60a. According findings, "relatively close" 59a-60a. oral argument, reported typically brings six twelve Courthouse average day." 28. Cf. Remarks Warren E. Burger, Dedication National ("I hope coordination systems—close, repeat, voluntary. experience State-Federal Councils shown value cooperation").

Category: 8