Porter v. Jennings et al

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING 91 , 95 Plaintiff's Motions for Subpoena and ORDER DENYING 93 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Subpoena signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/26/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
CAPTAIN JENNINGS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01811-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENA (ECF Nos. 91,
95)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA (ECF
No. 93)

14
15
16

I.

Background
Plaintiff Samuel Kenneth Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17
18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

20

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Jennings, Lowe, and Darlene for failure to

21

protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion

22

for service of subpoena, filed September 26, 2012; 2) Plaintiff’s motion to modify a subpoena, filed

23

October 1, 2012; and 3) Plaintiff’s motion for service of subpoena, filed October 5, 2012. ECF Nos.

24

91, 93, 95. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

25

II.

26

September 26, 2012 Motion
Plaintiff moves for the Court to process a subpoena duces tecum on the California State

27

Assembly, seeking the production of the Corcoran State Prison Hearings. This request was

28

previously adjudicated on September 21, 2012, when the Court denied service of the subpoena duces
1

1

tecum. Plaintiff now contends that the Corcoran State Prison hearings documents will demonstrate

2

that guards at Corcoran State Prison had a habit of covering up inmate rapes. Plaintiff also requests

3

documents related to an investigation by Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. Again, the Court does not

4

find that Plaintiff’s requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

5

evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff fails to provide any explanation as to how the Corcoran

6

State Prison hearings from 1998, or Mike Wallace’s investigation, have any bearing on the outcome

7

of this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

8

III.

9

October 1, 2012 Motion
Plaintiff moves to clarify a subpoena duces tecum which the Court ordered served on

10

Calipatria State Prison. Plaintiff seeks to modify the subpoena duces tecum to include the

11

audio/visual recordings of interviews conducted by the investigating officer regarding Plaintiff’s

12

crime/incident report complaint. The subpoena duces tecum specifically listed audio/visual

13

recordings related to crime/incident report CAL-FDP-09-07-0349. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is denied

14

as moot.

15

IV.

October 5, 2012 Motion

16

Plaintiff moves for service of subpoena duces tecum on the Custodian of Records for CDCR

17

regarding Stuart J. Ryan being fired because of Plaintiff’s citizen investigation of his failure to allow

18

Muslim prisoners to pray on rugs. Plaintiff contacted the United States and California Department

19

of Justice. Plaintiff contends that his actions a direct result of motive by Defendants to allow his

20

alleged rape. Plaintiff also seeks information regarding former correctional officer Poindexter, a

21

correctional officer familiar with the use of “rape enforcers” and the culture of Corcoran State

22

Prison.
The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the

23
24

discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff fails to identify what

25

information he seeks. Plaintiff’s contentions regarding past issues at Corcoran State Prison fails to

26

relate to conduct by Defendants in this action.1 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

27
28

1

Plaintiff also complains that Shannon Hewitt, representing non-party CDCR with regards to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests, is not disclosing the identities of responsible parties at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff provides no
explanation.

2

1

V.

Conclusion and Order

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion for service of subpoena duces tecum, filed September 26, 2012 and

3

1.

4

October 5, 2012, are denied; and

5

2.

6

moot.

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the subpoena duces tecum, filed October 1, 2012, is denied as

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

November 26, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

DEAC_Signature-END:

12

3b142a

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3