Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING 56 Motion for the Clerk of Court to Issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/17/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,

12

Case No. 1:12-cv-00730 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MARISOL, et al.,

15

[ECF No. 56]

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Horace Mann Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this
19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First
20 Amended Complaint on the following claims: (1) violation of the First Amendment against
21 Defendants Valdivia, Agu, Lopez, and Trimble; and (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment
22 against Defendants Marisol, Sica, Agu, Valdivia, and Lopez.
DISCUSSION

23
24

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Clerk of Court to issue subpoenas

25 duces tecum to the following non-parties to this action: B. DaViega, Tarnoff, and Hernandez.
26 Plaintiff states these non-parties have explicit knowledge and documentation which is vital to the
27 matter now before the Court.
28

As an initial matter, it is unclear what type of discovery Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff simply

1

1 states that these individuals have “knowledge and documentation,” but he does not specifically
2 state what he seeks.
3

Rule 45

4

To the extent Plaintiff seeks documents, he is entitled to seek documents or tangible

5 things from third parties via the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Civil
6 Procedure 45, which would be served by the United States Marshal given that Plaintiff is
7 proceeding in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff must describe the documents he is seeking and
8 specify from whom he is seeking the documents. In addition, the Court will consider granting
9 such a request only if the documents or items sought from the nonparty are not equally available
10 to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for the production of
11 documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If
12 Defendants object to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step.
13 If the Court rules that the documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things are
14 discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then
15 seek a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a)(1). Alternatively, if the Court rules that the
16 documents or items are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Further,
17 discovery has been opened only to the limited issue of exhaustion.
18

ORDER

19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the Clerk

20 of Court to issue subpoenas duces tecum is DENIED.
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 17, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2