Kareem Stansbury v. United States Government et al

Filing 55

ORDER DENYING 54 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/24/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KAREEM STANSBURY,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00549-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ISSUANCE
OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, et al.,

(Doc. 54)

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Plaintiff Kareem Stansbury, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
16
this civil action on March 24, 2009, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
17
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of
18
civil rights by federal actors. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint,
19
filed on February 28, 2011, against Defendant Lehman for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
20
Amendment, and against Defendant Miller for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
21
Plaintiff’s claims arise from events which occurred in 2008 while he was incarcerated at United
22
States Penitentiary-Atwater (USP-Atwater) in Atwater, California.
23
On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces
24
tecum directing the Inspector General’s Office to produce documents.
25
Plaintiff may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of
26
documents from a non-party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of the subpoena by the United States
27
Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the
28
1

1

documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable

2

from Defendants through a request for the production of documents.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Plaintiff

3

wishes to make a request for the issuance of a records subpoena, he may file a motion requesting the

4

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with specificity the documents sought and

5

from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that the records are only obtainable through that

6

third party.

7
8

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to renewal.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
ie14hj

September 24, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Based on the nature of Plaintiff’s request, it appears the documents are not equally available to Plaintiff
and will need to be sought from Defendants.

2