Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 173

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena 171 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/10/13. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE H. ROBINSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. D. G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:08-cv-001380-AWI-BAM PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA (ECF No. 171) Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the complaint against 19 Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez and Masiel for use of excessive force 20 in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in 21 violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for 22 assault and battery in violation of state law. 23 On April 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a subpoena addressed to Jeffrey Beard, Director of CDCR, 24 and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the production of documents. 25 (ECF No. 171.) The Court construes this filing as a motion for issuance of a third-party subpoena. 26 Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. 27 28 Discovery in this matter is closed. On August 6, 2012, the Court re-opened discovery in this matter solely to allow Plaintiff to propound ten (10) interrogatories each to Defendants David, 1 1 Miranda and Martinez. (ECF No. 145.) No other discovery has been permitted. Accordingly, 2 Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena to non-party Jeffrey Beard and/or the California 3 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is DENIED. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara May 10, 2013 7 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 8 A. McAuliffe 10c20kb8554 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?