Austin v. Cermeno, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 12 Motion to Compel; and Granting a Second Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

No. C 12-05187 YGR (PR)

ARONDO AUSTIN,

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S NONPARTY DISCOVERY REQUEST; AND
GRANTING HIM A SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,
v.
J. CERMENO, et al.,
Defendants.

/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. In an Order dated June 24, 2013,

13

the Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint.

14

On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, "Motion to Order [California Department of

15

Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] Correctional Counselor] Critchlow to Rele[ase] Documents

16

Entitled To Plaintiff for Amended Complaint." His motion is construed as a motion for leave to

17

conduct non-party discovery. According to Plaintiff, he is "asking this Court to order CDCR

18

Counselor Critchlow to release documents concerning the Plaintiff's amended complaint." (Pl.'s July

19

3, 2013 Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff requests, among others, for the production of "staff complaints, letters

20

to [the] warden, inspector general, and internal affairs explaining that the CDCR is hindering [his]

21

602 complaints, and that [he] never received them back to further exhaust them." (Id. at 3.)

22

Plaintiff is reminded that federal courts do not conduct discovery for the parties. Moreover,

23

this Court cannot compel non-parties to provide Plaintiff with information unless he follows the

24

correct procedure according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may compel a person

25

who is not a party to this action to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant to a

26

subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In order to do so, Plaintiff must fill out

27

subpoena forms and must ensure that each person is served with the subpoena by a non-party.

28

Plaintiff must tender to each person "the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by

1

law." Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per day, see

2

28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. See Dixon

3

v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). There is nothing in the record showing that Plaintiff has

4

followed the aforementioned procedure prior to requesting the Court to order a non-party to produce

5

the document mentioned above. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct non-party

6

discovery (Docket No. 12) is DENIED at this time.

7

Good cause appearing, however, the Court on its own motion finds that Plaintiff should be

8

granted another brief extension of time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file his

9

amended complaint on or by August 30, 2013.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline above, this action will be

11

dismissed. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent extraordinary

12

circumstances.

13

This Order terminates Docket no. 12.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: July 12, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Austin5187.2NDgrantEOT.wpd

2