Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING (1) Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of the Order Denying Motion for Subpoenas Without Prejudice and (2) Plaintiff's Request for Appeal Forms; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Request for a Copy of the Second Scheduling Order and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Send Plaintiff a Copy of the Second Scheduling Order 29 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/28/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
ANGELA BADAGON,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00736 -LJO-BAM
ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR APPEAL FORMS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR A COPY OF THE SECOND SCHEDULING
ORDER AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE
SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
complaint, filed May 9, 2011, against Defendant Badagon for excessive force in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. On August 28, 2013, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order, which
scheduled a jury trial for February 19, 2014, and set forth the procedures for securing the attendance of
witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 22.)
On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff submitted several completed and blank subpoenas. The
Court construed Plaintiff’s filing as a motion requesting the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance
of certain witnesses at trial, but Court denied the request without prejudice on October 17, 2013,
1

1

because Plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures outlined in the Second Scheduling Order for

2

obtaining the attendance of witnesses. The Court instructed Plaintiff on the proper procedure,

3

including the requirement that Plaintiff submit witness and mileage fees to secure the attendance of

4

non-detained witnesses. (ECF No. 28.)

5

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant opposition to the Court’s order denying his

6

motion for subpoenas without prejudice. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for

7

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his request for subpoenas without prejudice.

8

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

9

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

10

is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present

11

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”

12

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)

13

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, Local Rule 230(j)

14

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed

15

to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

16

the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

17

In his papers, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s denial of his request for the issuance of

18

subpoenas because he cannot afford to pay the required witness fees. Plaintiff’s disagreement alone is

19

not a sufficient basis to grant a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff again is informed that the

20

tendering of witness fees and travel expenses is required even if he is proceeding in forma pauperis.

21

There is no statutory authorization for the Court or the United States Marshal to expend public funds

22

for witness and travel expenses even if Plaintiff pleads poverty. However, Plaintiff is not prevented

23

from testifying on his own behalf at trial.

24

Insofar as Plaintiff requests forms to appeal “the loss of this case due to his poverty,”

25

Plaintiff’s request is premature. (ECF No. 29, p. 2) This action has not proceeded to trial and a final

26

judgment has not been entered.

27
28
2

1

To the extent Plaintiff claims he never received a copy of the Court’s Second Scheduling

2

Order, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff an additional copy of the Second

3

Scheduling Order.

4

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

1. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion for
subpoenas without prejudice is DENIED;

6
7

2. Plaintiff’s request for appeal forms is DENIED as premature; and

8

3. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the Second Scheduling Order is GRANTED. The Clerk of

9

the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Second Scheduling Order issued on
August 28, 2013.

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 28, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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