Trujillo v. Munoz

Filing 18

ORDER DENYIG Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Subpoena Transcripts, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/25/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:14-cv-00976 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUBPOENA TRANSCRIPTS

v.
[ECF No. 17]

14

MUNOZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

19

June 23, 2014.1 He names Correctional Officer Munoz as Defendant. On June 5, 2015, the Court

20

dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a

21

First Amended Complaint.
On July 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a subpoena directed to Kings County

22
23

Superior Court to obtain transcripts of a sentencing hearing held in Plaintiff’s criminal case. The

24

discovery phase of this litigation is not yet open. Plaintiff is advised that the Court is required to

25

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or

26

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or

27

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to

28
1

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any
portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In this case, the Court has not yet screened the First Amended
Complaint, and service has not yet been authorized. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is
premature.
Further, assuming that Plaintiff is able to state a claim, the pendency of this action will not
entitle Plaintiff to the issuance of a subpoena directed toward the Kings County Superior Court for
issuance of transcripts. Plaintiff may not challenge his underlying conviction in a civil rights action;
he must do so by way of a habeas corpus petition. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991);
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). In this case, the Court’s jurisdiction will be limited
to the issuance of orders that remedy the underlying legal claim. Id.

14
15
16

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena
is DENIED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 25, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2