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)
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?