Recino v. Unknown

Filing 55

ORDER Requesting Response Regarding Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum re 46 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/17/18. Thirty Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERTO R. RECINO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Roberto R. Recino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against two unknown correctional officers for failing to

20

intercede as Plaintiff was beaten by other inmates, and for delaying in obtaining medical

21

treatment for him after the beating, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

On July 27, 2016, the Court found service of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint

23

appropriate and directed Plaintiff to provide, within forty-five (45) days, a motion to substitute

24

the identities of the Doe Defendants or a status report indicating the actions he took to locate their

25

names. (ECF No. 33.)

26

Following a series of motions to compel and for issuance of a subpoena, on September 13,

27

2017, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum

28

directing the Warden of California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”), to produce any and
1

1

all medical reports relating to Plaintiff, from April 2004 to August 2004. (ECF No. 46.) The

2

subpoena was returned executed on September 20, 2017. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff failed to

3

communicate with the Court thereafter, and on April 17, 2018, the Court issued an order directing

4

Plaintiff to provide written notice identifying the Doe Defendants or to show cause why the Doe

5

Defendants should not be dismissed and this action closed. (ECF No. 49.)

6

On May 30, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

7

recommending that the Doe Defendants be dismissed and this action closed, without prejudice.

8

(ECF No. 50.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice

9

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No

10

objections were filed, and the findings and recommendations were adopted on June 25, 2018.

11

(ECF No. 51.) Judgment was entered accordingly the same day. (ECF No. 52.)

12

On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case and requesting appointment

13

of counsel. (ECF No. 53.) The Court construed the motion to reopen the case as a motion for

14

reconsideration and granted the motion on August 13, 2018. (ECF No. 54.)

15

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff stated that, following service of the subpoena

16

duces tecum, he never received a response from the Warden of CSP-Corcoran, the Court, or the

17

Attorney General’s Office regarding the requested documents. (ECF No. 51.)

18

The Court finds it appropriate to provide the Warden of CSP-Corcoran, or other

19

representative of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with the

20

opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. A response may be in the form of a short

21

declaration, including any attachments relevant to the institution’s compliance with the subpoena

22

duces tecum. This order will be served on the Litigation Coordinator of CSP-Corcoran as well as

23

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), which is the institution where Plaintiff is

24

currently housed.

25

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the Warden of CSP-Corcoran, or

27

other representative of CDCR, shall file a response regarding compliance with the

28

September 13, 2017 subpoena duces tecum, as discussed above; and
2

1

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order, by email, on the

2

Litigation Coordinators of CSP-Corcoran and RJD.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 17, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3