Williams v. Romero et al
Filing
73
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/14/2019 DENYING plaintiff's 72 request for a site inspection subpoena. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LANCE WILLIAMS,
12
No. 2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ROMERO, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff alleges defendants subjected him to excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to
19
his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In a document filed here on November
20
8, 2019, plaintiff requests the court approve a “site inspection subpoena.” On April 26, 2019,
21
plaintiff filed a similar request. (ECF No. 56.) The court denied that request on a variety of
22
grounds, including plaintiff’s failure to show how he would pay the costs of service of the
23
subpoena, failure to identify who would conduct the inspection, and failure to show the relevance
24
of a site inspection to his claims. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff’s current request is also inadequate.
25
The legal standards this court must apply when considering a request for a site inspection
26
are set out in the court’s July 3, 2019 order and will not be repeated here. (See ECF No. 61.) In
27
his current request, plaintiff states simply that his family would pay for the subpoena; it would be
28
served by “Solano Legal process server company;” and the inspection would be conducted by
1
1
attorney Paul Martin, who, according to plaintiff, is “qualified to enter prison.” (ECF No. 72.)
2
Plaintiff does not explain, however, why Martin would be qualified to conduct the kind of
3
inspection necessary to support his case.
4
Plaintiff states that he requires the inspection to “show jury how fast door moved how
5
much spacing was part of incident.” He further states that a diagram or description of the
6
workings of the mechanical door would be insufficient to show the jury how the door caused his
7
injuries and “will show malice and forethought.” Plaintiff does not provide any further
8
explanation for that statement. Again, this court finds plaintiff’s explanation insufficient to
9
demonstrate that the less intrusive alternatives, such as diagrams and descriptions, would not
10
allow him to present his case to a jury. First, plaintiff fails to explain just what the site inspection
11
would involve and how the result of that inspection would differ from a diagram or description.
12
Second, he fails to show that a jury would be unable to discern from a diagram or description how
13
the mechanical door worked. Third, he fails to show how the site inspection would produce
14
evidence demonstrating defendants’ intent or the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a site inspection
16
subpoena (ECF No. 72) is denied.
17
Dated: November 14, 2019
18
19
20
21
DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/will1884.subp for inspection
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?