Norwood v. Hubbard

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING 67 Motion for the Court to Please Send Plaintiff 2 Subpoena Duces Tecum Documents signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 7/30/2010. (Marrujo, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Kenneth Wilson Norwood, Plaintiff, vs. Suzan Hubbard, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-00889-SMM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion the Court to Please Send Plaintiff 2 Subpoena Duces Tecum Documents" (Doc. 67). Generally, a subpoena duces tecum may be used to compel the production of books, papers, and documents that are relevant to a proceeding. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 40 (2010). Documents of which production is sought to be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum should be specified with certainty so that the documents can be identified and the court can determine whether the request is proper. Id. §§ 41, 45. Plaintiff states that he will use the subpoenas in order "to process legal business that will process Plaintiff's 1983 civil rights action suit," but he states nothing further (Doc. 67). Plaintiff does not specify what documents he is requesting, and he offers no explanation for why he needs the unidentified documents. Because Plaintiff does not elaborate upon his onesentence explanation, the Court cannot determine whether his request is proper and, therefore, will deny the request. As the Court stated in the initial Scheduling Order dated April 14, 2010 (Doc. 54), the parties should comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules governing discovery. In particular, Plaintiff should follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34 regarding requests for production of documents. The Court cannot advise Plaintiff on how to conduct discovery, which "would undermine [the] district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Moreover, the Constitution does not guarantee prisoners the right to effectively litigate their claims. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). While prisoners have a right of access to the courts, this right only encompasses the ability to raise a claim before the court. Id. Once a prisoner has filed his claims with a court, he has no right to discover or effectively litigate such claims. Id. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion the Court to Please Send Plaintiff 2 Subpoena Duces Tecum Documents" (Doc. 67) is DENIED. DATED this 30th day of July, 2010.

-2-