California Department of Corrections v. United States

Background

Weldon Wiggins, an inmate in California, was the plaintiff in a federal civil lawsuit and asked to be brought to court to attend his trial. A federal judge issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum — an order to produce a prisoner to testify — and ordered the State to pay all costs to transport and secure Wiggins at trial. The State sought reimbursement from the United States Marshal, pointing to an earlier Supreme Court decision, and appealed when the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit relied on a Third Circuit case and distinguished contrary rulings from the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, creating a split among appeals courts. The opinion notes that the authority to issue such writs comes from 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5).

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to review the case, so it did not decide the underlying question. The central practical issue is who should bear the financial burden of producing an incarcerated person called as a witness or civil plaintiff at a federal trial. Courts are agreed that they can order the production of prisoners, but they disagree about whether the State must pay the full cost. The dissenting Justice argued the Court should take the case to resolve the conflicting approaches taken by different appeals courts.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the split among regional appeals courts remains. In some parts of the country, states may be ordered to pay transport costs; elsewhere, courts may require the federal government or marshal to cover expenses. The matter is not finally decided and could return to the Court for a full ruling later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should grant review to resolve the circuit conflict about who pays transport costs.