Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 238

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 1/22/2014, denying 237 Motion for Expedited Order. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CHRISTOPHER JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:10-CV-0162-LRH (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
January 22, 2014

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before this court is plaintiff’s motion for expedited order (#237) regarding whether
plaintiff is proceeding in this case in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (#237).
Plaintiff was granted IFP status and filed this case in the Seventh Judicial District Court
in the State of Nevada in the County of White Pine (#237, Ex. A). On March 23, 2010, the
defendants removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443. The defendants paid
the initial filing fee for this case upon removal. Plaintiff did not apply for IFP status in this case.
Plaintiff now seeks to have the court recognize his IFP status granted in the state court
action so that he may have subpoenas served by the Clark County Sheriff’s Office rather than the
U.S. Marshal Service. Plaintiff cites Local Special Rule 1-5 as his authority for the court to
recognize his IFP status. Local Special Rule 1-5 states:
The Court may, either on motion of a party or sua sponte, after
affording an opportunity to be heard, revoke leave to proceed in
forma pauperis if the party to whom leave was granted becomes
capable of paying the complete filing fee of the applicant has
willfully misstated information in the motion and affidavit for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff did not apply for IFP status in this case in federal court. Therefore, LSR 1-5
does not apply in this instance. Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff were proceeding IFP,
such status does not extend to the issuance and service of subpoenas at government expense.
Local Special Rule 1-8. Witness fees are not costs the court will bear on behalf of an indigent

litigant. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the U.S. Marshal does not
serve subpoenas in civil cases, even if payment is made. Therefore, plaintiff is responsible for
making all arrangements for service, the expense of service, the witness fee, and any other costs.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (28
U.S.C. § 1915 does not entitle a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to a waiver of witness
fees for subpoenas).
The court will not allow plaintiff to circumvent the rules of the court and require an
outside state or county agency to serve plaintiff’s subpoenas free of charge. Plaintiff’s motion
for an expedited order (#237) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk