Dixon v. Yates
Filing
59
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/4/2015 GRANTING in part petitioner's 56 application for issuance of subpoenas and the Clerk shall provide petitioner's counsel with four signed but otherwise blank subpoena forms. (4 issued subpoeas served by mail on petitioner's counsel.) (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FRANK DIXON,
12
No. 2:10-cv-0631 JAM AC P
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
JAMES YATES,
15
ORDER
Respondent.
16
Currently before the court is petitioner’s application for issuance of subpoenas for his
17
18
evidentiary hearing witnesses. ECF No. 56. Petitioner requests the court issue the subpoenas
19
“because of uncertainty in a 28 U.S.C. section 2254 proceeding whether counsel for petitioner can
20
issue subpoenas to testify on his own, or whether the subpoenas must be issued by leave of
21
court.” The court notes that counsel for both parties in this action have previously been
22
authorized to issue subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses.1 ECF No. 54. Though counsel for
23
petitioner is authorized to issue subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses, the court will grant
24
petitioner’s motion in part and direct the Clerk of the Court to send petitioner’s counsel four
25
signed but otherwise blank subpoena forms pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3).
26
////
27
28
1
The parties must stipulate to or move for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. ECF No. 54.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for issuance of
2
subpoenas (ECF No. 56) is granted in part and the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide
3
petitioner’s counsel with four signed but otherwise blank subpoena forms. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
45(a)(3).
5
DATED: June 4, 2015
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?