Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 87

ORDER VACATING Subpoenas For Roger Low and Rejenda Dwivide, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/3/2011. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CARLOS QUIROZ, 9 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING SUBPOENAS FOR ROGER LOW AND REJENDA DWIVIDE v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Carlos Quiroz (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding against 18 Defendants Attygalla and Shen for violation of the Eighth Amendment. 19 On January 13, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshals 20 Service to serve Drs. Rejenda Dwivide and Roger Low with subpoenas and money orders for 21 attendance at trial on August 23, 2011. That trial date has now been vacated. The subpoenas are 22 thus unnecessary.1 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The subpoenas for doctors Rejenda Dwivide and Roger Low to appear before the 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821, Drs. Low and Dwivide were also served with money orders for purposes of appearing before the Court on August 23, 2011 as witnesses for trial in this action. Because these witnesses are no longer needed for an August 23, 2011 trial, the money orders are no longer necessary and need not have been issued. 1 1 2 Court on August 23, 2011 are VACATED; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order by mail on doctors Rejenda 3 Dwivide and Roger Low, using the addresses listed on the certificates of service 4 (Docs. 73 and 78). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?