Coleman v. Adams, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Subpoena for Production of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 4/13/2012. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAAHDI COLEMAN, CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 11 v. 12 DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Doc. 73 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 I. Procedural History 17 On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On May 6, 2009, the Court found a 19 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical need as to Plaintiff’s 20 vision problems and falling from his top bunk. Doc. 18. On September 3, 2010, the Court issued a 21 discovery and scheduling order, setting a discovery deadline of May 3, 2011. Doc. 55. On May 23, 22 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of the discovery deadline, setting a revised 23 discovery deadline of August 1, 2011. Doc. 65. On August 4, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ 24 motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, setting a deadline of August 25 29, 2011. Doc. 67. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for extension of the 26 dispositive motion deadline, setting a revised dispositive motion deadline of November 7, 2011. 27 Doc. 69. On October 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 70. On 28 November 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena for production of documents from a Page 1 of 3 1 nonparty, i.e., custodian of consumer employee records. Doc. 73. On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed 2 an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, memorandum of points and authorities, 3 statement of undisputed facts, exhibits, and response to Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts. 4 Docs. 75-79. On March 26, 2012, Defendants filed reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for 5 summary judgment. Doc. 82. This matter is deem submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 6 II. Analysis 7 First, subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena 8 commanding the production of documents or tangible things from a nonparty, and to service of the 9 subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, the Court 10 will consider granting such a request only if the documents or tangible things sought from the 11 nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a 12 request for the production of documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Defendants object 13 to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court rules that 14 the documents or tangible things are discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and 15 control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of a nonparty. Alternatively, if the Court rules 16 that the documents are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. The Court will not issue a subpoena for 17 a nonparty individual without Plaintiff first following the procedure outlined above. 18 Second, the Court extended the discovery deadline to August 1, 2011. Doc. 65. In 19 Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline to November 7, 2011, Defendants 20 stated that discovery had not been completed. Doc. 68. Plaintiff did not move to extend the discovery 21 deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena, filed after the discovery deadline, is untimely. 22 Despite his pro se status, Plaintiff is not entitled to any latitude for the untimeliness. See Fingerhut 23 Corp. v. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856–57 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that pro se 24 representation does not excuse a litigant from complying with court orders); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 25 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining that although courts should liberally construe pro se 26 plaintiffs’ legal arguments and strictly construe their compliance with procedural requirements); see 27 also Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008–09 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that pro se plaintiffs must 28 follow the rules of the court). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena is untimely. Fed. R. Civ. Page 2 of 3 1 P. 16(b). 2 Third, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how the documents are relevant to the allegations in 3 his complaint. Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain 4 discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 26(b). In Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena, Plaintiff requests weekly tracking reports to 6 identify overdue appeals. Since Plaintiff’s claim is Eighth Amendment claim deliberate indifference 7 to medical need as to Plaintiff’s vision problems and falling from his top bunk, overdue appeals are 8 not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. 9 III. Conclusion 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he followed the proper procedure to 11 request a subpoena for a nonparty individual; that Plaintiff’s discovery motion is untimely; and that 12 Plaintiff’s discovery request is not relevant to his pending claim. Based on the foregoing analysis, 13 Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena is DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 7j8cce April 13, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?