Baker v. Macomber et al
Filing
166
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/17/2021 DENYING plaintiff's 164 motion for service of subpoenas. (Yin, K)
Case 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC Document 166 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY RAY BAKER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:15-cv-0248 TLN AC P
ORDER
J. MACOMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983, has filed a motion for service of subpoenas. ECF No. 164. In his motion, plaintiff
19
requests the court direct service of subpoenas on two correctional officers “to testify voluntarily.”
20
Id. at 1. The motion will be denied.
21
As plaintiff was previously advised, if the officers he seeks to have testify at trial are
22
voluntary witnesses, there is no need for a subpoena. Plaintiff need only notify them of the date
23
and time of the trial. If the officers will not testify voluntarily, plaintiff may request a subpoena
24
to secure their appearance. However, in addition to completing and submitting subpoenas for
25
service by the United States Marshal, plaintiff is required to submit a money order for each
26
witness, payable to the witness he seeks to subpoena, for the full amount of the witness’s travel
27
expenses plus the daily witness fee of $40.00. ECF No. 21 at 4; ECF No. 154 at 2. There is no
28
indication that plaintiff has submitted the required money orders, and the court will not order the
1
Case 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC Document 166 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 2
1
2
subpoenas served until the required money orders are received.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for service of subpoenas,
3
ECF No. 164, is DENIED.
4
DATED: June 17, 2021.
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
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?