(PC) Howard v. Parks, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum as Premature signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/28/2024. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS
HOWARD,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:24-cv-00285-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS
PREMATURE

v.
(ECF No. 23.)
RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant Rodriguez for failure to protect and

20

negligence.

21

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed, inter alia, a motion for subpoena duces tecum. (ECF

22

No. 23.) Plaintiff’s motion is premature and should not be filed with the Court. Although the

23

Court has ordered service and CDCR has filed a notice of intent to waive, the waiver of service is

24

not due until September 25, 2024. (ECF Nos. 17, 22.) As Plaintiff was notified in the Court’s

25

first informational order, an order opening discovery is issued once an answer is filed. (ECF No.

26

2.) Since as answer has not been filed, Plaintiff’s motion is prematurely filed. Further, discovery

27

motions are not to filed with the Court unless and until there is a discovery dispute. Accordingly,

28
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum is DENIED as premature.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 28, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2