Franks v. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING 37 Request for Subpoena signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/12/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TOM MARK FRANKS,
Plaintiff,

12
vs.

13
14

SERGEANT KIRK, et al.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
SUBPOENA
(ECF No. 37)

Defendant.

15
16
17

Case No. 1:15-cv-00401-EPG-PC

Plaintiff Tom Franks, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action on
March 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was injured by another inmate

18
19

while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center in Modesto. On

20

May 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for the issuance of a subpoena to the Stanislaus County

21

Sheriff’s Department.1 In particular, the requested subpoena asks for “[t]he ‘keep away’ order

22

from on or around 8/9/2012 between inmate Tom Franks #1303249 and Joe Dixon #1238680, and

23

the incident report from the incident that caused the ‘keep away’ to be placed. And any ‘inmate

24

request’ forms from inmate Tom Franks from dates 7/15/2012 to 8/9/2012. Evidence of knife

25
26

taken from Joe Dixon during 8/9/202 incident.”
Defendants have filed a short opposition to the request, stating that they received a request

27
28

1

The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department is not a defendant in this litigation

1

1

for document production from Plaintiff that requests the same items that were named in the

2

request for subpoena. Defendants did not receive this request until May 11, 2017, the same date

3
4

Plaintiff filed his request for subpoena. Defendants represent that they are in the process of
obtaining the requested documents from the Sheriff’s Department and will produce them to

5
6
7

Plaintiff.
As previously explained to Plaintiff, the Court will only issue a subpoena if Plaintiff is

8

unable to obtain the targeted documents directly from Defendants and the Court determines that

9

Plaintiff is entitled to the documents. Defendants appear to be taking steps to obtain the requested

10

items and have agreed to produce the documents requested. Plaintiff’s request for subpoena (ECF

11

No. 37) is thus DENIED, without prejudice.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 12, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2