{"id":465,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=465"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"chapa-warden-fci-victorville-cd-cal-habeas-corpus-ad-testificandum-civil-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=465","title":{"rendered":"Chapa v. Warden, FCI Victorville \u2014 C.D. Cal. Refuses to Transport Federal Inmate to Testify in Texas Civil Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Luis Ricardo Chapa v. Warden of FCI Victorville Medium II<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-01619-CV<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Habeas corpus ad testificandum, federal prisoner transport, Wiggins factors, civil trial<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Luis Ricardo Chapa is serving a 192-month federal sentence at FCI Victorville Medium II in California after pleading guilty to three firearm-related offenses. He has a projected release date in July 2028. While incarcerated, he became the sole defendant and a counter-plaintiff in a private civil lawsuit pending in the 229th Judicial District Court of Duval County, Texas \u2014 a property-and-fraud dispute brought by his relatives.<\/p>\n

Trial in the Texas case was scheduled for January 26, 2026, and the state trial judge had refused to allow Chapa to testify by remote video. Chapa filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum \u2014 a centuries-old form of habeas relief that asks a federal court to order a prisoner brought to court to testify. He sought an order directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to transport him roughly 1,500 miles from California to Duval County, house him in a nearby state or federal facility for the duration of trial, and then return him to FCI Victorville at government expense.<\/p>\n

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, and Chapa objected. The district judge then conducted an independent review.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court accepted the magistrate judge\u2019s recommendation and denied the writ. Although the court agreed it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241(c)(5) to issue such a writ, it emphasized that the relief is discretionary and considered the four factors set out by the Ninth Circuit in Wiggins v. Alameda County: (1) whether the prisoner\u2019s presence will substantially advance resolution of the case, (2) the security risks the transport poses, (3) the expense of transportation and safekeeping, and (4) whether the underlying suit can be stayed without prejudice until the prisoner is released.<\/p>\n

On the first factor, the court found Chapa\u2019s in-person testimony would help his defense, but he had not exhausted alternatives such as seeking reconsideration of the no-remote-testimony order, offering deposition testimony, or pursuing other procedural options. This factor weighed only modestly in favor of granting the writ.<\/p>\n

On security, the court noted Chapa is medium-security and serving time for serious firearm offenses, with the nearest federal facility roughly 80 miles from the Texas courthouse. Continuous federal escort would be required, weighing modestly against the writ.<\/p>\n

The cost factor weighed heavily against issuance. The Texas case is a private dispute over property rights with no government parties or public-law issues, and Chapa proposed shifting the substantial transport-and-housing expenses onto the federal government. The court found that unjustified.<\/p>\n

On the stay factor, although a roughly two-year stay until Chapa\u2019s 2028 release would be substantial, his release date was definite, and the prejudice was less than he claimed. This factor weighed in favor of the writ but not strongly.<\/p>\n

Weighing all four factors, the court concluded the writ \u2014 described as an \u201cextraordinary measure\u201d \u2014 was not warranted, accepted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n