Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY PINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; 

JESUS VALERO,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA 

ISSUANCE AND SERVICE

(ECF No. 73)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The

matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendant Jesus Valero 

for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments and against Defendant Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for violation of the Privacy Act. This matter is set for an 

evidentiary hearing on November 19, 2015, to determine the authenticity of Plaintiff’s 

principal witness Matthew Eyre’s declaration. Presently pending before the undersigned 

is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Subpoena Issuance and Service.” (ECF No. 73.)

Plaintiff moves the Court to issue a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 74 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Procedure 45 to compel the testimony of Kindra Vargas, ADX SIS Technician, to testify 

about restrictions imposed on Plaintiff for using the special mail system to contact BOP 

inmates, including Matthew Eyre. This witness is unincarcerated and apparently not 

willing to testify voluntarily. Plaintiff asserts he is able to tender the $40 witness fee 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821, but argues that travel fees should be waived since he is 

asking that the witness appear via video conference from her place of work (where 

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated and from where Plaintiff will appear by video at the 

evidentiary hearing). 

Because Plaintiff recognizes his obligation to tender the $40 witness fee and 

because it appears the witness should incur no travel fees under the circumstances 

presented, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request subject to the following requirements: 

By November 5, 2015, Plaintiff must submit to the Court a money order in the amount 

of $40.00 made payable to Kindra Vargas and the completed subpoena form and USM285 form (as described below). If Plaintiff fails to comply with these requirements, the 

witness will not be subpoenaed to testify. If he does comply, the Court will forthwith 

forward the completed forms and the money order to the U.S. Marshal for service.

Plaintiff also asserts that he is in “an impossible situation due to Eyre’s 

recantation and allegations.” He claims that attacking Eyre’s credibility at the evidentiary 

hearing will ultimately prejudice Plaintiff because it will undermine the weight of Eyre’s 

“original” declaration (that is, the declaration whose authenticity is at issue). Plaintiff 

thus seeks leave pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to collect declarations 

from 21 current or former USP Atwater inmates who may be able to corroborate the 

contents of the “original” Eyre declaration. If Plaintiff is able to collect these declarations, 

he intends to strike Eyre’s “original” declaration. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by 

affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to 

justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow 

time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other 

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 74 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

appropriate order.” 

Plaintiff’s request for such relief will be denied on several grounds. First, Plaintiff

has not complied with Rule 56(d)’s requirements that he submit an affidavit or 

declaration in support of his request. Second, his request is premature. The Court has 

not yet ruled on the authenticity of the declaration. Unless and until it finds the 

declaration inauthentic, additional declarations are not necessary. Finally, even if the 

Court finds that an Eyre statement is inauthentic, it is not clear that Plaintiff will 

necessarily be placed in an “impossible situation.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena issuance and service (ECF No. 73) is 

GRANTED IN PART;

2. The Clerk of Court shall forward the following documents to Plaintiff:

a. One (1) subpoena;

b. One (1) USM-285 form; and

c. Two (2) copies of this order, one to accompany the subpoena, and one 

for the United States Marshal’s Service;

3. On or before November 5, 2015, Plaintiff shall complete and send to the 

Court the completed subpoena form, the USM-285 form, and two copies 

of this order, as well as a money order in the amount of $40 made payable 

to Kindra Vargas; and

4. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshal to serve Kindra Vargas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 74 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 74 Filed 10/23/15 Page 4 of 4