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)

Download PDF
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?