Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING 52 Plaintiff's Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/15/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.
et al.,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
(ECF No. 52)

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Default has been entered against Defendants

20

Mariposa County Sheriff Department, and Deputies Boehm, King, Remeriz, and Rumfelt. (ECF

21

No. 39.)

22

The district court discovered that Plaintiff had filed a similar case that was dismissed with

23

prejudice against these defendants. Accordingly, on November 12, 2013, District Judge Anthony

24

W. Ishii issued an order relating the two actions and referred the matter to the undersigned to

25

determine if the prior dismissal with prejudice is valid or if it should be vacated. On November

26

14, 2013, an order issued directing Plaintiff’s attorney in the related case to respond to Plaintiff’s

27

allegations regarding the prior dismissal.

28

subpoena duces tecum.

On the same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for a

1

1

Plaintiff is seeking to conduct discovery on the merits of his claims in this action by

2

subpoena duces tecum. Once default has been entered, the factual allegations in the complaint are

3

taken as true, but the allegation regarding the amount of damages must be proven. See Fed R.

4

Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). Since default has

5

been entered against the defendants in this action, the only issue, assuming that this action is not

6

dismissed on the basis of res judicata, is Plaintiff’s damages. Because Plaintiff is seeking to

7

conduct discovery on the merits of his claims, Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum is

8

HEREBY DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 15, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2