Merrifield et al v. Lockyer et al
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).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALAN MERRIFIELD, et al.,
No. 04-0498 MMC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
BILL LOCKYER, et al.,
On May 29, 2009, the Court entered judgment in the above-titled case in favor of
plaintiffs, and closed the file. Thereafter, on March 31, 2014, plaintiff Alan Merrifield
(“Merrifield”), purportedly acting pro se, submitted to the Clerk of Court two proposed
subpoenas, which he requested the Clerk issue.1
A review of the docket indicates that Merrifield is represented by counsel, and,
accordingly, any request for court action must be made through his counsel of record.
Moreover, Merrifield, who is not an attorney, cannot seek relief on behalf of any party other
than himself, and the proposed subpoenas seek documents that pertain to government
action involving other persons. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.
1966) (holding individual proceeding pro se may only represent himself)
Accordingly, the request for issuance of said subpoenas is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
For reference, the proposed subpoenas are attached hereto.
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?