Feiger v. Smith et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 68 Motion to conduct discovery; Request for court issued subpoenas and Motion for reconsideration of denial of Motion to appoint counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/20/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARLENE SMITH, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONDUCT DISCOVERY, REQUEST FOR
COURT ISSUED SUBPOENAS, AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT
(ECF NO. 68)
Robert Feiger (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed
a motion to conduct discovery, request for Court issued subpoenas, and motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 68).
All of Plaintiff’s requests will be denied. As to Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery,
the parties have already been granted leave to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 65, p. 2).
As to Plaintiff’s request for Court issued subpoenas, Plaintiff has failed to comply with
the requirements for issuance of the subpoenas. As the Court has informed Plaintiff, “[i]n any
request for a subpoena, Plaintiff must: (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and
from whom, and (2) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable through
that third party. The documents requested must also fall within the scope of discovery allowed in
this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).” (Id. at p. 4). Plaintiff has failed to identify with
specificity the documents he wishes to subpoena1 and failed to make a showing that those records
are only obtainable through a third party.
As to Plaintiff’s request for the Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to
appoint counsel, this request will be denied because Plaintiff already has a pending motion for
appointment of pro bono counsel that is before the Court for consideration (ECF No. 51). Note,
however, that “Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).” (ECF No. 32).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion
to conduct discovery, request for Court issued subpoenas, and motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 20, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff does identify records that he is seeking through discovery, but he does not identify
which of those records he needs subpoenas to get.
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?