Martinez Castro v. Unnamed Defendants
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING 14 Request for Early Discovery, without Prejudice; Thirty Day Deadline to File a Complaint in Compliance with the Court's Order of August 26, 2014 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/13/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint/IFP forms)(Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GLENN S. MARTINEZ CASTRO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:14-cv-01326-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EARLY
DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 14.)
vs.
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE A
COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COURT‟S ORDER OF AUGUST 26, 2014
UNNAMED DEFENDANTS,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Glenn S. Martinez Castro (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
22
action. On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the United States District Court for the
23
Southern District of California, requesting assistance. (Doc. 1.) The court construed Plaintiff‟s
24
letter as an attempt to file a complaint, filed the letter, and opened a civil rights action pursuant
25
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed another letter on May 27, 2014, which was construed as a
26
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for
27
extension of time to file a § 1983 complaint in this action. (Doc. 8.) On August 22, 2014, the
28
case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 9.)
1
1
On August 26, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a Complaint on
2
the court‟s form within thirty days; and to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on
3
the court‟s form, or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action, within forty-five days. (Doc. 12.)
4
Plaintiff has not yet filed the Complaint, submitted the application to proceed in forma
5
pauperis, or paid the filing fee.
6
On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order of Subpoena for
7
Timely Response.” (Doc. 14.) The court construes Plaintiff‟s document as a request for leave
8
to conduct early discovery.
9
II.
REQUEST TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
10
In a civil rights action brought by a prisoner without the assistance of counsel, early
11
discovery is available in certain circumstances. For example, the Ninth Circuit has held,
12
“„[W]here the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint,
13
the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
14
defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the
15
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.‟” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160,
16
1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). In
17
Gillespie, the plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action against several
18
U.S. Marshals, prison officials, and prison guards. However, the complaint did not name all of
19
the defendants. Instead, the plaintiff identified the unknown defendants as “John Doe” and
20
“filed interrogatories requesting from the named defendants the names and addresses of the
21
[unnamed defendants].” Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642–43. The district court denied the request
22
for discovery and dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the
23
“district court abused its discretion in not permitting the discovery sought by the [prisoner] ...
24
[as][i]t was very likely that the answers to the interrogatories would have disclosed the
25
identities of the „John Doe‟ defendants.” Id. at 643.
26
The facts in the present case are distinguishable from those in Gillespie. Here, Plaintiff
27
requests issuance of a subpoena to compel the defendants, who are correctional officers at
28
Wasco State Prison, to provide their full names and I.D. numbers to Plaintiff. However, in this
2
1
case, unlike in Gillespie, there is no complaint on file. Until Plaintiff files a complaint and
2
resolves the payment of the filing fee, pursuant to the court‟s order of August 26, 2014, this
3
case shall not proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff‟s request to conduct early discovery shall be denied.
4
Plaintiff shall be granted leave to renew the motion at a later stage of the proceedings, if he
5
wishes.
6
III.
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
7
Plaintiff is advised that after discovery is opened,1 and subject to certain requirements
8
set forth herein, he may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum commanding the
9
production of documents from a non-party, and to service of the subpoena by the United States
10
Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d).
11
such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to
12
Plaintiff and are not obtainable from the defendants through a request for production of
13
documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Some of the documents sought by Plaintiff may be kept in
14
Plaintiff=s central file at the prison, to which he is entitled to access. Should Plaintiff wish to
15
file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum at a later stage of the proceedings, the
16
motion must (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a
17
showing in the motion that the records are only obtainable through that third party. Also,
18
documents requested must fall within the scope of discovery allowed in this action.2
19
///
20
///
However, the Court will consider granting
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Ordinarily, the court issues an order opening discovery after one of the defendants has filed an answer to
the complaint.
2
Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the
scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable
matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
28
3
1
IV.
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1.
4
5
Plaintiff‟s request to conduct early discovery, filed on September 10, 2014, is
DENIED, without prejudice; and
2.
Plaintiff is granted an extension of time until thirty (30) days from the date of
6
service of this order in which to file a complaint on the court‟s form, in
7
compliance with the court‟s order of August 26, 2014.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 13, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?