(PC)Sykes v. Avenal State Prison et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING without Prejudice 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/02/2025. (Deputy Clerk CM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TROY A. SYKES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA
(Doc. 17)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Troy A. Sykes is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

19

I.

20

Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of

21

confinement claim against Defendant John Doe, Avenal State Prison (ASP) Food Services Head

22

Manager, only. (See Docs. 14 & 15.)

23

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2024, this Court issued its order granting Plaintiff ninety (90) days within

24

which to identify the John Doe defendant. (Doc. 16.) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a

25

document titled “Plaintiff’s Request for Motion of Subpoena for Name of (A.S.P.) Food Services

26

Head Manager.” (Doc. 17.)

27

//

28

//

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

As Plaintiff was previous advised, the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum

3

requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations and “[d]irecting the Marshal’s

4

Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.”

5

Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008);

6

28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought, and the burden

7

and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information. (See Doc. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff

8

was also advised that a “motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by

9

clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only

10

through the identified third party.” (Id.)
Here, Plaintiff “requests Discovery from Defendants to produce name of John Doe who is

11
12

the Food Services Head Manager or equivalent title at Avenal State Prison.” (Doc. 17 at 1.)

13

Plaintiff also “requests the ninety days to file ‘notice of substitution’ begin when court receives

14

Discovery of requested information of name of John Doe.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied

15

without prejudice.

16

While the name of John Doe is relevant, Plaintiff has failed to identify any individual to

17

whom a subpoena should be directed. His reference to “Defendants” is unclear because the

18

previously named defendants, other than John Doe, have been dismissed from the action. (See

19

Doc. 15.) Nor has Plaintiff indicated that the name of the ASP Food Services Head Manager is

20

“obtainable only through” a third party. See Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC),

21

2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-

22

SMS (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010).

23

Assuming Plaintiff cannot obtain the identity of “John Doe, ASP Food Services Head

24

Manager” through other means,1 Plaintiff may resubmit his request for a subpoena to learn the

25

identity of John Doe. Plaintiff must identify an individual to whom the subpoena should be

26

directed,2 and explain how a record identifying John Doe is “obtainable only through the

27
28

1

Plaintiff may consider requesting the necessary information via a CDCR form 22.

2

Examples might include the warden, the institution’s2litigation coordinator, or some other official at ASP

1

identified third party.” To the extent Plaintiff believes the Court conducts discovery (see Doc. 17

2

at 1 [“when court receives Discovery of requested information”]), he is mistaken. See Womack v.

3

Virga, No. 2:11-cv-1030 MCE EFB P, 2012 WL 4465372, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (“The

4

role of the court is not to conduct discovery or research for the parties”). If the Court issues a

5

subpoena to any third party in the future, Plaintiff will be the recipient of the information sought

6

by the subpoena rather than the Court.

7

To allow Plaintiff sufficient time within which to either learn the identity of John Doe

8

through other means or to resubmit a proper request for a subpoena, including the information

9

referenced above, the Court will extend the stay for purposes of limited discovery an additional

10

ninety days.

11

III.

12

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

13

1. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice; and

14

2. This action is STAYED an additional ninety (90) days to allow for limited discovery

15

concerning the identity of “Defendant John Doe, ASP Food Service Head Manager”

16

and for the filing of a “notice of substitution” once that identity has been learned.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

January 2, 2025

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

with knowledge and documentation concerning the individual employed as manager in the food services
department.

28
3