Merrifield et al v. Lockyer et al

Filing 174

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 1, 2014. (Attachment: # 1 ) (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2014: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ALAN MERRIFIELD, et al.,

No. 04-0498 MMC

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
BILL LOCKYER, et al.,
11
Defendants
12

/

13
On May 29, 2009, the Court entered judgment in the above-titled case in favor of
14
plaintiffs, and closed the file. Thereafter, on March 31, 2014, plaintiff Alan Merrifield
15
(“Merrifield”), purportedly acting pro se, submitted to the Clerk of Court two proposed
16

subpoenas, which he requested the Clerk issue.1

17
A review of the docket indicates that Merrifield is represented by counsel, and,
18
accordingly, any request for court action must be made through his counsel of record.
19
Moreover, Merrifield, who is not an attorney, cannot seek relief on behalf of any party other
20
than himself, and the proposed subpoenas seek documents that pertain to government
21
action involving other persons. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.
22
1966) (holding individual proceeding pro se may only represent himself)
23
Accordingly, the request for issuance of said subpoenas is hereby DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated: April 1, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

27
28
1

For reference, the proposed subpoenas are attached hereto.