(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail et al
Filing
69
ORDER Addressing 65 Plaintiff's Motion in Duces Tecum and ORDER Directing Defendants to Inform the Court Regarding Plaintiff's Ability to Access Moneys in His Trust Account and His Ability to Obtain Money Orders for the Purpose of Paying Witness and Witness Travel Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/28/2025. Response due within five (5) days. (Deputy Clerk AML)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN REYNA,
12
13
No. 1:20-cv-00447 KES GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
“MOTION IN DUCES TECUM”
v.
(ECF No. 65)
14
KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
INFORM THE COURT REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S ABILITY TO ACCESS
MONEYS IN HIS TRUST ACCOURT AND
HIS ABILITY TO OBTAIN MONEY
ORDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING
WITNESS AND WITNESS TRAVEL FEES
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THIS
ORDER DUE IN FIVE DAYS
19
20
21
Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil
22
rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
23
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This matter is at the
24
pretrial phase of proceedings. See ECF No. 51. Plaintiff is in the process of attempting to secure
25
the attendance of his trial witnesses.
26
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion in Duces Tecum to: Subpoena Kings County Jail to Release
27
Funds.” ECF No. 65. It appears that Plaintiff is requesting the Court to direct the Kings County
28
Jail to release funds to the Court from his trust account in an amount calculated by the Court as
1
1
being necessary to pay the witness fees and travel expenses of his trial witnesses as he alleges that
2
the Jail will not assist him in procuring money orders for that purpose.
3
4
5
Defendants will be directed therefor, as set forth below, to inform Court regarding this
matter.
I.
6
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Plaintiff states that he has asked Kings County Jail deputies how to go about
7
releasing funds from his trust account to obtain the necessary money orders. ECF No. 65 at 1.
8
He further states that since making these inquiries, he has been told by “Deputy James” that
9
“there is no policy that states that [Kings County Jail has] to do anything to help [him] with
10
[obtaining] anything that has to do with getting money orders for any case.” Id. (brackets added).
11
Finally, Plaintiff states that the deputies at Kings County Jail are aware that he is
12
proceeding pro se in this case and that he has limited resources. He therefor requests the Court to
13
direct Kings County Jail to release the necessary funds to the Court so that he can pay the witness
14
and travel fees for his witnesses. ECF No. 65 at 1-2.
15
II.
16
To begin, an inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the
17
DISCUSSION
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977).
18
To determine if this right is being afforded to Plaintiff, and to assist the Court with a
19
prompt resolution of this matter, Defendants will be directed to respond to the Court by filing
20
with the Court answers to the following questions, and to do so within 5 days of receiving this
21
order: (1) whether Plaintiff is being hindered or denied access to the funds in his trust account, if
22
so, why; (2) whether Plaintiff is being denied or hindered the ability to obtain money orders
23
needed by him to obtain witnesses for his upcoming trial, if so, why; (3) whether the Kings
24
County Jail has an existing policy or protocol regarding requests made by inmates whom wish to
25
procure money orders that are necessary to pay witness fees; (4) if there is such a policy or
26
protocol, what is the policy or protocol; and finally, (4) if no such policy or protocol exists, how
27
is the Kings County Jail abiding by the Bounds decision when inmates are seeking its assistance
28
in obtaining the attendance of their trial witnesses?
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
3
Within five days from the date of this order, Defendants shall file with the Court
answers to the questions set forth above.
4
5
6
Defendants are warned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted
may result in the imposition of sanctions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 28, 2025
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?