Meisler v. Chrzanowski et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING # 32 Motion for subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 3/18/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

MICHAEL CHARLES MEISLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NADINE CHRZANOWSKI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:12-cv-00487-MMD-WGC
ORDER
re: Doc. # 32

12
13

Before the court is Doc. # 32,1 Plaintiff’s motion requesting the court to issue a subpoena to

14

require an alleged employer/former employer of Defendant Janice Tebo2 to disclose Defendant Tebo’s

15

current address so that Plaintiff may effect service of his amended complaint on her.

16

Plaintiff’s action against defendant Tebo is predicated upon a state law conspiracy claim as to

17

Defendants Janice Tebo and Laura Sperry (Defendant Sperry supposedly conspired with Janice Tebo

18

to violate his rights). (Doc. # 21). Plaintiff states a process server he has retained advised him Ms. Tebo

19

“cannot be located.” (Doc. # 32 at 2-3.) Plaintiff contends Ms. Tebo “is an indispensable party defendant,

20

not only to the Federal claims presented but specifically as to the Second and Third Pendant Causes of

21

Action.” (Id., at 3-4.) While the court has skepticism that Ms. Tebo is an “indispensable party,” as

22

Plaintiff characterizes her (Doc. # 21 at 3-5, 9, 10-11), the court does not need to reach that issue at this

23

time.3

24
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

2

Identified by Plaintiff as “Starbucks Coffee Shop, Topsy Lane, Suite 410, Douglas County, Nevada.” (Doc. # 32-1

25
26
27
28

at 1.)
3

As this court noted in its Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 21), Plaintiff’s First Amended Complain “focuses
on the fact that his cellular data was allegedly obtained without a warrant or court order.” (Id., at 5; Report and
Recommendation adopted by District Judge Miranda M. Du, Doc. # 22.) The federal claims against Ms. Tebo were dismissed
and Plaintiff was allowed to proceed only on his common law conspiracy claims against Ms. Tebo. (Id., at 3-4.) Therefore,
Plaintiff’s characterization of Ms. Tebo as an indispensable party is suspect but again, need not be further addressed for the
purposes of this order.

1

The court takes notice that Plaintiff was convicted of aggravated stalking of Ms. Tebo, a violation

2

of Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.575(2). He was sentenced to prison for a term of 12 years, with parole eligibility

3

after 2 years. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Plaintiff’s conviction. Meisler v. State, 321 P.3d 930

4

(Nev. 2014). The Supreme Court’s decision also noted that the protective order was issued by Ninth

5

Judicial District Court, Douglas County, Nevada, where Plaintiff was convicted. The protective order

6

was not part of the Supreme Court’s decision. It was, however, entered into the docket of the Ninth

7

Judicial District Court as part of Mr. Meisler’s Amended Judgment of Conviction. The court takes

8

judicial notice of the District Court’s twenty year Extended Protection Order contained in the Amended

9

Judgment of Conviction, a copy of which is attached to this order as Exhibit 1. Under the terms of the

10

Extended Protection Order, Plaintiff is precluded from contacting Ms. Tebo “for any reason, directly or

11

indirectly, or through any third party.” (Id., at p. 2.) Any intentional violation of this order, the District

12

Court ruled, would constitute a “category C felony.” (Id., at 2, ¶ d.)

13

Because of the conviction of aggravated stalking of Ms. Tebo, and because of the terms of the

14

District Court’s protective order, this court declines to issue a subpoena which might disclose to Plaintiff

15

the current address and whereabouts of the victim. Until the Plaintiff can secure a modification of the

16

Amended Judgment of Conviction, this court will not allow the issuance of a subpoena which would

17

appear to enable Plaintiff, even indirectly, to contact Ms. Tebo “for any reason.”

18

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 32) is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: March 18, 2015.

21

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Exhibit 1