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)

Download PDF
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

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?