Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS, CDCR 

#34318, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS [ECF Nos. 86, 90, 92, 94]

Plaintiff Doyle Wayne Davis has filed a motion to compel discovery, a 

motion for appointment of counsel and experts, a motion for an order to issue 

subpoenas duces tecum, and a motion for the court to order the Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) to use a telephone conference call speaker 

for future Case Management Conferences with the Court. (ECF Nos. 86, 90, 92, 

94.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

A. Motion to compel discovery 

In his motion to compel discovery filed on November 2, 2017 nunc pro tunc 

October 31, 2017, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of medical 

records as well as the identity of John Doe “Jose.” (ECF No. 86.) Defendants J. 

Silva and S. Pasha (“Defendants”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion is DENIED. With respect to Plaintiff’s medical records, the Court did not, 

as Plaintiff contends, require Defendants to subpoena Plaintiff’s medical records 

from his non-prison providers, including Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, TriCity Medical Center, and Alvarado Medical Center. Rather, the Court observed 

that if Defendants chose to subpoena Plaintiff’s medical records from these 

facilities, Plaintiff would be entitled to inspect the documents produced or obtain 

copies of such documents upon payment of a reasonable copying charge. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a), Advisory Committee Notes (2013 Amendment) (“Parties 

desiring access to information produced in response to [a] subpoena will need to 

follow up with the party serving it or the person served to obtain such access. . . . 

The party serving the subpoena should . . . make reasonable provision for 

prompt access.”); see also Vensor v. Central Arizona Corr. Facility, 2014 WL 

12675251, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2014) (requiring the defendant to serve on the plaintiff 

copies of documents received in response to the defendant’s subpoena). The 

Court did not order Defendants to issue subpoenas to Plaintiff’s medical 

providers, nor could it. It is up to Defendants to decide which discovery to 

pursue. If Defendants opt to not subpoena these records and Plaintiff believes 

they are needed to support his claims, it is up to Plaintiff to obtain them. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendants to 

provide the identity of Defendant John Doe “Jose,” the Court cannot compel the 

production of discovery that has not been served. Plaintiff has not yet served an 

interrogatory or any other discovery seeking the identity of Defendant John Doe 

“Jose.” Plaintiff’s “motion to compel discovery and/or waiver of service” dated 

September 28, 2016 did not constitute a discovery request. As the Court stated 

in its December 16, 2016 order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, discovery had not 

yet been authorized at that time, as three motions to dismiss were pending 

before the Court. The Court stated, “If this case proceeds to discovery, Plaintiff 

may then attempt to ascertain the true identity of Defendant John Doe “Jose” and 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

seek to amend his Complaint to name that defendant.” Dec. 16, 2016 Order, 

ECF No. 57, at 4. Now that the case has proceeded to discovery, Plaintiff may 

seek this discovery by following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As he has 

not yet done so, this motion is premature.1

B. Motion for appointment of counsel and experts

 Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), seeks the appointment of 

counsel for the second time “based upon additional facts not before the Court 

previously.” (ECF No. 90.)2

 He contends his rapidly deteriorating medical 

condition, severe heart failure, prevents him from litigating this matter on his own. 

(Id.) “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 

District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to 

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional 

circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A 

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood 

of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Neither of these 

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 

decision.’” Id. (citations omitted). 

 The Court, in denying Plaintiff’s initial motion for appointment of counsel, 

found Plaintiff had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” required to 

                                               

1 Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not file motions to compel discovery until he has 

served formal discovery requests, received a response (or allowed for a sufficient amount of 

time to receive a response), and thoroughly met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel 

regarding any areas in dispute. A motion to compel discovery, including the instant motion, 

does not constitute a discovery request. 

2 The Honorable Roger T. Benitez denied Plaintiff’s first motion to appoint counsel on 

July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

justify the appointment of counsel. July 18, 2016 Order, ECF No. 11 at 4-5. The 

alleged continued deterioration of Plaintiff’s health does not alter the Court’s 

analysis. See, e.g., Jefferson v. Hollingsworth, 2017 WL 3396516, at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. 2017) (denying motion for appointment of counsel despite the plaintiff’s 

allegation of compromised health). The facts alleged in the Complaint are not 

complex and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and 

legal bases of his claim with sufficient clarity and to litigate his claim on his own 

behalf. Based on the record currently before the Court, it is clear that Plaintiff 

has the competence necessary to pursue his case. Without more, this Court 

cannot conclude that there are “exceptional circumstances” which would warrant 

the appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. Further, Plaintiff has not submitted 

anything which would suggest he is likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of cardiac and neurologic experts. 

(ECF No. 90 at 36-37.) He argues there will be a “multitude of medical 

information, medical records, and medical based standards” that will need to be 

explained to the jury in this case. (Id. at 2.) An expert witness may testify to help 

the trier of fact determine the evidence or a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. A 

court has full discretion to appoint a neutral expert witness pursuant to Fed. R. 

Evid. 706(a). Appointment of an expert witness is generally appropriate when 

“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to 

understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.” Torbert v. Gore, 2016 WL 

2460262, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2016). The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not 

waive the requirement of the payment of fees or expenses for witnesses in a 

§ 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 

1993). 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of an expert for his own benefit, 

the Court has no authority to grant him such relief. Rule 706(a) permits the Court 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to appoint only neutral expert witnesses. Furthermore, “28 U.S.C. § 1915 does 

not authorize the court to appoint an expert for plaintiff’s benefit to be paid by the 

court.” Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1178-79 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Thus, 

if the Court were to appoint an expert witness in this action, the expert would be 

appointed to assist the Court. There are no pending matters on which the Court 

requires special assistance and the issues in this case are not so complex as to 

require the testimony of expert witnesses to assist the Court. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of experts is DENIED. 

C. Motion for an order to issue subpoenas duces tecum

Plaintiff moves for an order directing the issuance of ten (10) subpoenas 

duces tecum. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff requests the Court order the U.S. Marshal 

to serve the subpoenas upon the following: 

1. Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center 

2. Alvarado Medical Center 

3. Tri-City Medical Center 

4. Oscar A. Matthews, M.D., Tri-City Medical Center 

5. Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D., Tri-City Medical Center 

6. Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D. 

7. David Guldseth, M.D., RJD 

8. Jason Silva, M.D., RJD 

9. John Hodges, M.D., RJD 

10. Jose Gonzales, Laboratory Technician, RJD 

“The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise blank, to a party 

who requests it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). That party must complete the 

subpoena before service. Id. A subpoena must be either issued and signed by 

the clerk of court or an attorney. Id. A pro se plaintiff who is not admitted to 

practice law is not authorized to sign and issue a subpoena. Cramer v. Target 

Corp., 2010 WL 1791148, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010). A plaintiff proceeding pro se 

and IFP is entitled to service of subpoenas by the U.S. Marshal. 29 U.S.C. § 

1915(d); see also Williams v. Paramo, 2017 WL 5001286, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2017). 

The court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an IFP 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiff is subject to limitations, however. Baca v. Biter, 2017 WL 1476943, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. 2017). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as 

well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested 

information. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45). The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure “were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer 

excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces 

tecum.” Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit 

of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Id. (citation omitted). The 

IFP statute does not entitle a plaintiff to a waiver of the fees or expenses of the 

witness. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The Court is unable to direct the service of the subpoenas that have been 

presented to the Court, as the proposed subpoenas are subpoenas to appear 

and testify at a hearing or trial in a civil action (Form AO 88) (see ECF No. 92 at 

35-64), not subpoenas to produce documents, information, or objects (Form AO 

88B). Additionally, the proposed subpoenas are signed by Plaintiff, which 

renders them invalid as Plaintiff is not an officer of the Court. Furthermore, any 

documents within the possession, custody or control of Defendants or the CDCR 

may be obtained by Plaintiff through a request for production of documents. 

Indeed, Defendants have already indicated that any documents from Plaintiff’s 

medical file in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants and the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) will be 

produced to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Defs.’ Resps. to Pl.’s First Set of Req. for Prod. 

of Docs., ECF No. 92 at 19-21. 

 Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces 

tecum is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of Court shall issue to Plaintiff six (6) 

signed, but otherwise blank, subpoena duces tecum forms and shall send six (6) 

U.S. Marshal Forms 285. Upon receipt of the properly completed U.S. Marshal 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

285 forms and accompanying subpoenas, the U.S. Marshal is directed to 

promptly effect service of the subpoenas to the recipients listed at Nos. 1-6 

above. The proposed subpoenas to RJD medical providers (Nos. 7-10 listed 

above) are not needed as Plaintiff may obtain the requested documents through 

a request for production of documents served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

D. Motion for an order for a telephone conference call speaker

 Plaintiff requests the Court order RJD to use a conference call speaker 

attached to the telephone for the January 9, 2018 telephonic Case Management 

Conference. (ECF No. 94.) Prison management must be left to the broad 

discretion of prison administrators, and does not fall within the Court’s 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s request is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 27, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 95 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7