Recino v. Unknown

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A SUBPOENA 41 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR A SUBPOENA signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/22/2017. (Filing Deadline: 7/26/2017). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT R. RECINO,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR A SUBPOENA
(ECF No. 41)

Defendant.

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT
INFORMATION FOR A SUBPOENA

v.
UNKNOWN,

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

Plaintiff Robert R. Recino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against the two defendant unknown correctional officers for
allegedly failing to intercede as Plaintiff was beaten by other inmates, and for delaying in
obtaining medical treatment for him after the beating, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Court’s screening order informed Plaintiff that the use of Doe defendants is
acceptable to withstand dismissal of the complaint at the screening stage, but the United States
Marshal cannot initiate service of process on those unknown defendants in this action until they
are identified by their names. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff was permitted forty-five (45) days to file a
motion to amend his complaint to substitute a name for each unknown defendant, or to file a
status report explaining the actions he took to locate the names of those defendants. (Id. at 3.)
1

1

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to for a Rule 45 subpoena.

2

Plaintiff’s Attempts to Learn Identities of the Defendant Correctional Officers

3

In his motion for a Rule 45 Subpoena, Plaintiff submits his declaration setting out with

4

specificity the efforts he undertook to learn the two officers’ identities and how and why those

5

efforts were unsuccessful. In a prior order, the Court had stated that the information to identify

6

the Doe defendants should be in Plaintiff’s medical records and plaintiff should access and review

7

those files before asking for a subpoena.

8
9

In his motion, Plaintiff indicates that he submitted three requests for his medical reports
related to the injuries he received. He agrees that the names of the correctional officers who

10

escorted Plaintiff to medical on the day of the incident would be on those reports. Plaintiff states

11

that “the requests were ignored.” Plaintiff indicates that he has been transferred to the RJ

12

Donovan facility, but that his medical records were not transferred with him, and that he does not

13

have access to the medical records at the RJ Donovan facility.

14

The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has attempted to exhaust finding out the identity of the

15

two correctional officers from information that is available to him.

16

Doe Correctional Officer Identities

17

Given that Plaintiff is limited to seeking discovery pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal

18

Rules of Civil Procedure at this stage of the proceeding, he is entitled to the issuance of

19

subpoenas duces tecum under Rule 45. Plaintiff shall inform the court within thirty days as

20

follows: (a) Plaintiff must indicate to which institution(s)/facility a subpoena should be directed.

21

Plaintiff states in his motion that his medical records were not transferred with him to RJ

22

Donovan. However, it is for Plaintiff to identify to which institution(s)/facility the subpoena

23

should be directed; (b) Plaintiff must list which documents need to be produced by the

24

appropriate State Prison to identify the Doe correctional officers who escorted Plaintiff to

25

medical. Plaintiff must be as precise as possible when identifying the documents he wants which

26

may name defendants. He must limit his request to documents that might reveal the identity of the

27

Doe Defendants, and he must tailor the subpoena so as to avoid undue burden and expense on the

28

part of the responding party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).
2

1

Upon receipt of this information, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve

2

the subpoenas duces tecum. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will not authorize service of a

3

subpoena for documents which do not reasonably identify the Does correctional officers who

4

escorted Plaintiff to medical. In other words, this does not open discovery for other kinds of

5

documents. Plaintiff’s request for identification of the two Doe correctional officers thus should

6

not extend beyond a request for a document showing the identity of the male correctional

7

officer(s) who escorted Plaintiff to medical.

8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9
10

1.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must
specify:

11

a. The institution or institutions to which the subpoena(s) should be directed,

12

b. The documents necessary to identify the Doe Defendants, as set forth in this

13

order, and
14
2.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action, with

15
prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 22, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3