Mitchell v. Davey, et al.

Filing 100

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum, Without Prejudice 99 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/6/2019. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

CRM M.S. ROBICHEAUX,

14

Defendant.

(ECF NO. 99)

15
16
17
18
19

John E. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum

20

“for personal appearance and[/]or production of documents, electronically stored information,

21

and things at trial or hearing….” (ECF No. 99).

22

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. First, Plaintiff does not identify

23

with specificity the documents and information he is seeking. Second, Plaintiff failed to

24

provide the name of the entity or entities he believes should be subpoenaed. Third, Plaintiff

25

failed to make a showing that the requested documents and electronically stored information is

26

only available through a third party. (See ECF No. 98, pgs. 3-4).

27
28

If Plaintiff chooses to re-file his motion, he should include all of the above-listed
information.
1

1

As to Plaintiff’s request to subpoena witnesses for trial, Plaintiff should wait until he

2

has compiled his entire list of witnesses that need to be subpoenaed, and then file his request.

3

Moreover, Plaintiff should file his request closer to the deadline of April 8, 2020, so as to

4

preserve both his and the Court’s resources. For example, the case may settle, in which case

5

there will be no need for Plaintiff to request that the Court issue the subpoenas, or the trial may

6

be continued, in which case the Court would need to re-issue the subpoenas it already issued.

7
8

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion
for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum is DENIED without prejudice.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2