Trevino v. Dotson et al
Filing
86
ORDER DENYING MOTION by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 85 Motion to Stay. (Certificate of Service Attached) (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ROBERT TREVINO,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 15-cv-05373-PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 85
E. DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights action. Defendants filed a motion for
14
summary judgment for failure to exhaust and plaintiff is to file his opposition by June 23,
15
2017. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to stay the proceedings and for an evidentiary
16
hearing. Plaintiff also argues that he is still attempting to obtain discovery. However, the
17
court stayed discovery pending resolution of the exhaustion motion. Many of plaintiff’s
18
discovery requests concern the underlying claims and are not relevant to the exhaustion
19
motion. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied. Plaintiff should present his arguments
20
regarding exhaustion in his opposition to summary judgment. Once the summary
21
judgment motion is fully briefed, the court will determine if a hearing is required.
22
Plaintiff has also returned two document subpoena forms for the court to serve.
23
One subpoena involves his efforts to obtain contact information for two unserved
24
defendants that were discussed in the court’s prior order. The court will order that
25
subpoena to be served. The court also informed plaintiff that the subpoenas were not a
26
substitute for discovery. Plaintiff’s second subpoena is for fingerprint evidence and
27
photographs concerning the underlying disciplinary infraction that is the subject of this
28
action. Because discovery is stayed pending resolution of the exhaustion motion, the
1
cou will not serve this subpoena. In addition, the court's authoriza
urt
s
s
s
ation of a su
ubpoena
2
duces tecum requested by an in for
rma pauper plaintiff i subject to limitations
ris
is
o
s.
3
mitations inc
clude the re
elevance of the inform
f
mation sought as well a the burde and
as
en
Lim
4
exp
pense to th non-party in providin the requ
he
y
ng
uested infor
rmation. Fe R. Civ. P. 26, 45.
ed.
5
The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedu were no intended to burden a non-party with a
ure
ot
y
6
duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoe duces
ena
7
tec
cum.” Badm v. Star 139 F.R.D. 601, 60 (M.D. Pa
man
rk,
05
a.1991); see also Unite States v.
e
ed
v
8
Co
olumbia Bro
oadcasting Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 36 (9th Cir.1982) (cou may awa costs of
6
64
urt
ard
f
9
compliance with subpoena to non-p
w
party). Non
n-parties are “entitled t have the benefit of
e
to
e
this court's vig
s
gilance” in considering these fact
c
g
tors. Badm
man, 139 F.R.D. at 605 Once the
5.
e
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
exh
haustion motion has been decide plaintiff can seek th evidenc from defe
b
ed,
his
ce
endants, or
r
12
a motion to co
m
ompel if the informatio has not b
e
on
been provid or throu another subpoena
ded
ugh
a
13
req
quest. To the extent plaintiff argu that fing
p
ues
gerprint evi
idence and photographs are
14
req
quired to ar
rgue the exhaustion motion, he sh
m
hould prese those a
ent
arguments in his
15
opposition.
16
CONCLU
USION
17
1. Plaintiff’s motio for a sta and an e
on
ay
evidentiary h
hearing (Do
ocket No. 8 is
85)
18
ENIED.
DE
19
2. The Clerk shall sign the appropriate portions an provide the subpoe
e
a
nd
ena
20
reg
garding the unserved defendants to the Unit States M
d
s
ted
Marshal wh shall ser
ho
rve, without
t
21
pre
epayment of fees, the subpoena on the part listed on the subpoe
o
ty
ena.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 7, 2017
7
24
25
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
26
27
\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2015\2015_05373
3_Trevino_v_Do
otson_(PSP)\15-c
cv-05373-PJH-or
rd3.docx
28
2
1
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
2
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
3
4
ROBERT TR
REVINO,
Case No. 1
15-cv-05373
3-PJH
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
6
7
E. DOTSON, et al.,
s.
Defendants
8
9
10
I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
Dis
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
That on June 7, 201 I SERVE a true and correct cop
n
17,
ED
d
py(ies) of the attached, b placing
by
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.
16
17
18
Robert Trevino ID: J-6436
67
Sal
linas Valley State Prison D4-#130L
n
P.O Box 1050
O.
0
Sol
ledad, CA 93960
19
20
21
Da
ated: June 7, 2017
22
23
usan Y. Soon
ng
Su
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict
24
25
26
27
By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
28
3
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?