Cisco v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER R. CISCO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0782 (UNA) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”), and motion for a hearing (ECF No. 3, “Mot.”). The Court will grant the application and deny the petition and motion.

Petitioner currently is detained at the Ford County Correctional Center in Paxton, Illinois. See Pet. at 4, 6. He asks “this Court [to] issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring [the] Ford County Sheriff . . . and Jail Admin. . . . to bring [him] before the Court for [a] hearing scheduled to commence on March 7[], 2025[.]” Id. at 1.

A court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if “[i]t is necessary to bring [Petitioner] to testify or for trial.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5); see Castillo v. Hogan, No. 3:14-cv-1166 (VAB), 2019 WL 13241143, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2019) (citing Atkins v. City of New York, 856 F. Supp. 755, 757 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). The decision to issue the writ is left to the court’s discretion. See, e.g., Parks v. Thomas, No. 1:13-cv-3090, 2014 WL 31475, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2014). Because Petitioner has no matter pending before this Court, there is no reason for him to be brought to the District of Columbia. If Petitioner is requesting a writ for the purpose of appearing at an Illinois court proceeding, this *2 Court cannot, and should not, determine whether Petitioner’s presence is necessary to testify or for trial. See Tucker v. Rockwell, No. 10-cv-2125 (NLH), 2010 WL 2545986, at *1 (D.N.J. June 18, 2010) (“[T]his Court is not the trial court hearing the matter at which Petitioner seeks to testify. As such, this Court does not have proper jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in this matter.”).

An Order is issued separately

/s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN DATE: April 10, 2025 United States District Judge