(PC) Kindred v. Cabrera et al
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Extension of Time and DENYING 5 Plaintiff's Request for a Subpoena, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/7/2020. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUESTS FOR A SUBPOENA
WUILMER CABRERA, et al.,
(Docs. 5, 11)
Plaintiff’s complaint was recently screened and found to be devoid of a cognizable claim.
(Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was then ordered to file a first amended complaint, a notice of voluntary
dismissal, or a notice of election to stand on his complaint. Plaintiff now moves for an extension
of time to file a response. (Doc. 11.) Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.
Plaintiff has also filed two motions for a subpoena to be served on the Litigation
Coordinator at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California to obtain employment records that
would help Plaintiff ascertain the identity of a John Doe defendant (Doc. 11) and to obtain a copy
of a police report dated February 9, 2019 (Doc. 5). The Court finds Plaintiff’s motions for a
subpoena to be premature in the absence of a cognizable claim and before the issuance of a
discovery and scheduling order. See Smith v. Municipality of Fresno, 1:19-cv-0651-DAD-EPG,
2019 WL 6618059, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (“If the Court finds cognizable claims in this
matter and orders that the case proceed to the discovery stage, the Court will instruct Plaintiff as
to how to issue subpoenas.”); Wallace v. Pierce County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3:19-cv-5329-RBL1
DWC, 2019 WL 2141640, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2019) (denying request for a subpoena as
premature “[a]s the Court has not yet served Plaintiff’s complaint or entered a pre-trial scheduling
order.”) These motions will therefore be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file
his response to the Court’s Screening Order within thirty days from the date of this
2. Plaintiff’s motions for a subpoena (Docs. 5, 11) are DENIED as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 7, 2020
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?