(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al

Filing 137

ORDER Requiring CDCR to Respond re 134 Response filed by Garrison S. Johnson, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 08/4/2011. (Responses- (14) Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00640-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING CDCR TO RESPOND

v.

(DOC. 134)

JOHN DOVEY, et al.,

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, G.

19

Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions of

20

confinement, retaliation, and state law claims.

21

On March 10, 2011, the Court directed the United States Marshal to serve subpoenas

22

duces tecum on CDCR and Matthew Stainer, acting warden of California Correctional

23

Institution, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. CDCR and Mr. Stainer were to

24

respond to the subpoenas. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Motion For

25

Contempt Citation, Sanctions, and Dispositive Relief” against non-parties Matthew Cate and

26

Michael Stainer, filed May 26, 2011. Doc. 130. The Court treats the motion as a motion to

27

compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. On May 31, 2011, CDCR filed its

28

response to the motion. Doc. 131. CDCR contends that it served objections to Plaintiff’s
1

1

subpoenas. On June 6, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to supplement his motion by submitting

2

CDCR’s objections. Doc. 133. On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his response. Doc. 134.

3

Plaintiff contends that he did not receive any written responses to the subpoenas from CDCR,

4

and would thus be unable to comply with the Court’s June 6, 2011 Order.

5

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, “[a] person commanded to produce

6

documents . . . may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection .

7

. . . The objection must be served the earlier of the time specified for compliance, or 14 days

8

after the subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). Failure to obey a subpoena pursuant

9

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may subject a subpoenaed party to be held in contempt.

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e). Plaintiff is correct that he will be unable to respond to the Court’s order if

11

CDCR never served him with written objections.

12
13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that CDCR is to serve and file a response to
Plaintiff’s response within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

August 4, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2