McDonald v. Yates et al
Filing
121
ORDER Denying 114 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena to Produce Central File and for Appointment of Arbitrator or Interpreter, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/25/13. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JIMMY MCDONALD,
9
10
11
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00730-LJO-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ISSUANCE
OF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE CENTRAL
FILE AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF
ARBITRATOR OR INTERPRETER
v.
J. A. YATES, et al.,
(Doc. 114)
12
Defendants.
/
13
14
Plaintiff Jimmy McDonald, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
15
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 24, 2009. This action for damages is
16
proceeding against Defendants Cano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Roberts for acting with deliberate
17
indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff’s health and/or safety, in violation of the Eighth
18
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
19
A telephonic trial confirmation hearing is currently scheduled for May 17, 2013, a settlement
20
conference is scheduled for June 12, 2013, and jury trial is scheduled for June 25, 2013. On March
21
8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena to produce his central file and
22
for the appointment of an arbitrator or an interpreter. Defendants filed an opposition on March 29,
23
2013, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 22, 2013.
24
As Plaintiff has been informed on multiple occasions, the discovery phase of this litigation
25
is closed. Therefore, his motion for the issuance of a subpoenas duces tecum commanding the
26
production of his central file is denied as untimely. (Docs. 53, 59, 80, 93, 103.) Furthermore,
27
Plaintiff’s trial exhibits are limited to those identified in his pretrial statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e);
28
Local Rule 281(b)(11).
1
1
With respect to an arbitrator or an interpreter, Plaintiff has made no showing that he has a
2
need for either. Irrespective of that deficiency, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the
3
expenditure of funds for an arbitrator or an interpreter and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989).
5
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena to produce his
6
central file and for the appointment of an arbitrator or an interpreter, filed on March 8, 2013, is
7
HEREBY DENIED.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
April 25, 2013
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?