Weathers v. Hagemeister-May et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Miscellaneous Motions 11 , 13 , 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/5/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WINONA WEATHERS,

12
Plaintiff,
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01932-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

v.

14

(ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14)
15
M. HAGEMEISTER-MAY, et al.,
16
Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20
21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a

22

claim. The First Amended Complaint has not been screened.
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to (1) subpoena medical files from the

23
24

Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”), (2) postpone decision on the amended

25

petition (sic) which the Court construes as a request to stay screening, and (3) subpoena

26

Dr. Chaudry, attending physician at CCWF.

27

I.

28

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY SUBPOENAS
Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena
1

1

commanding the production of documents and information from a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

34(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, relevant to her claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

3

However, the Court will consider granting such a request only after discovery has

4

opened and upon a showing the documents or information sought from the nonparty are

5

not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a

6

discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36. If Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery

7

request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court rules that the documents

8

or information are discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and control of

9

them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of a nonparty. Alternatively, if the Court rules that

10

the documents and information are not discoverable, the inquiry ends.
The Court will not issue a subpoena for a nonparty individual without Plaintiff first

11
12

following the procedure outlined above.
Here the subpoena requests are premature. This matter is in the screening phase.

13
14

No cognizable claim has been stated. Defendants have not been served. The Court has not

15

issued an order allowing discovery to begin. It is not clear that the documents and

16

information sought are not available to Plaintiff if she makes a proper institutional request.

17

The Court will deny the motions for discovery subpoenas but will do so without

18

prejudice. Plaintiff may renew her motions, if necessary, at the appropriate time and if

19

appropriate grounds exist.

20

II.

MOTION TO STAY SCREENING

21

“The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

22

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997), citing

23

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The proponent of the stay bears

24

the burden of establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors

25

when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may result

26

from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

27

required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the

28

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected
2

1

to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972), quoting

2

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the need for and entitlement to a stay of screening

3
4

pending discovery. Her discovery motions are premature for reasons stated. She does not

5

provide any legal or factual reason why the screening process can not and should not

6

move forward. See Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (strength of

7

justification for stay should balance length of any stay granted).

8

Additionally, staying this action would create a risk of prejudice to the Defendants.

9

“[D]elay inherently increases the risk that witnesses' memories will fade and evidence will

10

become stale”. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); see

11

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (a presumption of injury arises

12

from delay in resolving an action). Delay also disrupts the Court's schedules.

13

III.

ORDER

14

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

without prejudice, and

16
17

Plaintiff’s motions for discovery subpoenas (ECF Nos. 11, 14) are DENIED

2.

Plaintiff motion to stay screening (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 5, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4