Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 14

ORDER: 1) DENYING Request For an Investigator, 2) DENYING Plaintiff's Requests for Information, 3) DIRECTING Plaintiff to Resubmit Subpoena, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/4/2015. Thirty Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Blank Subpoena)(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

LANCE WILLIAMS,

11
12

Plaintiff,

ORDER:
1) DENYING REQUEST FOR AN
INVESTIGATOR

v.

13
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
14
15

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-MJS (PC)

Defendants.

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR INFORMATION

16

3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO RESUBMIT
SUBPOENA

17

(ECF No. 13)

18
19

Plaintiff, Lance Williams, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has
21
22

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

23

On May 13, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated cognizable medical

24

indifference claims against two John Doe correctional officers and ordered Plaintiff to

25

identify documents that would enable him to ascertain their identities. (ECF No. 12.)

26

Plaintiff filed a subpoena and declarations in response. (ECF No. 13.)

27
28

1

In these documents, Plaintiff requests appointment of an investigator and

2

production of the following information to help identify the John Doe defendants:

3

1) The names, photographs and gender of the correctional officers working the

4
first- and third-watch shifts on April 5th and 6th, 2014 and the second-watch
5
shift on April 6th and 7th, at the D-Yard, Building No. 4, B side of Wasco State

6

Prison;

7
8

2) The sign-in log for the officers in the above shifts;

9

3) The contact information of inmate A. Dozier, CDC # AR-9431, who was

10

housed in cell #122, Building No. 4, D-Yard, A Side; and

11

4) The contact information, including the current parole unit, of inmate Jerry

12
Kelly, who was housed in cell No. 236, Building No. 4, D-yard, B side.

13

The Court addresses these requests in turn.

14
15

I.

16
17
18
19

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN INVESTIGATOR
Plaintiff requests the court to appoint an investigator to assist him in discovering

Defendants’ identities. However, absent Congressional authorization, the Court cannot
provide resources to indigent pro se litigants to enable them to more easily prosecute a
case. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976); Tedder v. Odel, 890

20
21

F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir.1989).
Plaintiff has provided no authority under which the court could appoint or pay an

22
23

investigator to assist him. The court is not aware of any such authority. It therefore

24

denies Plaintiff’s request for an investigator.

25

II.

26

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
The Court has authorized Plaintiff to proceed with discovery to try to determine

27
the identity of Does 1 and 2. His instant request for issuance of subpoenas under Rule
28
2

1

45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is in furtherance of that objective. However,

2

his request is unacceptably broad, asks for documents not likely to exist in the form

3

described, and on its surface would appear to impose an undue burden on the

4
responding party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).
5
6

Plaintiff must limit and refine his request. He must provide additional facts to

7

enable the prison to limit its production to documents calculated to identify only the

8

individuals against whom Plaintiff has claims. (See ECF No. 12, at 11)(discovery opened

9

for the limited purposes of identifying defendants). Plaintiff may not engage in a fishing

10
11

expedition to gain information about multiple indivduals which might then improperly
influence, intentionally or not, his identity of Doe defendants. See Hardge v. Adams, No.

12
13
14
15

1:05-cv-00718 2009 WL 2581331, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2009); see also Calderon v.
United States Dist. Ct. for the N.D. Cal., 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996).
1. Does’ Identities

16

Plaintiff alleges that on April 5, 2014, in the dark of night, John Doe 1, violated his

17

rights by refusing Plainitff’s request for medical attention. His request for identification of

18
19

Doe 1 thus need not extend beyond a request for a document showing the identity of the
male correctional officer(s) on duty in D-Yard, Building No. 4, B side of Wasco State

20
21

Prison, during the period beginning after lights out on the night of April 5 and continuing

22

until before dawn on April 6, 2014. If Plaintiff attempts to subpoena this information, he

23

should include on the subpoena form as complete a description of Doe 1’s physical

24

appearance as possible.

25
26

Plaintiff alleges a similar refusal of medical attention by Doe 2 on April 6, 2014. If
Plaintiff chooses to resubmit a subpoena for documents identifying Doe 2, Plaintiff

27
28
3

1

should narrow the scope of his request by specifying the time of day he interacted with

2

Doe 2 and describing Doe 2 as thoroughly as possible.

3

In the event multiple individuals meet Plaintiff’s description, Plaintiff should also

4
explain how he intends to determine which are Does 1 and 2.
5
6

Plaintiff’s subpoena may also request production of any and all prison logs or

7

other documents in or subject to the prison’s possession, custody or control which reflect

8

directly or indirectly any communication between Plaintiff and any correctional officer

9

during the night of April 5, 2014 or any time April 6, 2014.

10
11

2. Inmate Contact Information
Plaintiff may at this time subpoena current contact information, if known, and most

12
13
14

recent contact information, if not known, for inmate Dozier and parolee Kelly. The
prison’s response will determine if and how he may proceed further to contact and

15

communicate with said witnesses. However, Plaintiff can anticipate institutional

16

concerns about and restrictions on providing such information to him, and so he shall

17

accompany his request for a subpoena with a declaration specifying under penalty of

18
19

perjury his basis for believing such witnesses have knowledge relevant to his claims and
his basis for believing they could and would provide evidence to assist him in identifying

20
21

the Doe defendants.

22

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

23

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

24

1) Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an investigator is DENIED.

25

2) Plaintiff’s request for sign-in logs, photographs, full names, and genders of the

26

correctional officers for the specified shifts between April 5 and April 7, 2014 is

27
28
4

1

DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to resubmit his request for a

2

subpoena in the form described above;

3

3) Plaintiff’s request to subpoena the contact information of inmate Dozier and

4

parolee Kelly is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to resubmit his

5
request for a subpoena in the form described above;

6
7

4) The Clerk of the Court should send Plaintiff one (1) blank subpoena form; and,

8

5) Within thirty (30) days from the service of this Order, Plaintiff should

9

complete and return to the Court the subpoena, accompanied by Plainitff’s

10

declaration as specified above.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5