Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-22/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

JAQUES FEARENCE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

THIRD REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENA

(Doc. 82.)

I. BACKGROUND

Jaques Fearence ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed 

by Plaintiff on November 22, 2013, against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive 

force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to protect Plaintiff;

and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for conspiracy to use 

excessive force. (Doc. 64.) 

This case is currently in the discovery phase, pursuant to the court’s scheduling order 

issued on February 19, 2014. (Doc. 74.) 

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for the issuance of a subpoena, which is now 

before the court. (Doc. 82.)

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 83 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

II. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD REQUEST

Plaintiff requests the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum commanding “L. L. Shulteis, 

et, al... & Defendants & Attorney” to produce the following materials at the California 

Correctional Institution (“CCI”) before October 2014:

-- Any designated documents or electronically stored information including 

writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound and video recordings, 

images, and other data complications (sic) in regards to Plaintiff’s cell extraction 

on 8-11-05; and

-- Any and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the use of 

force with MK-9 foggers OC pepper spray, in year 2005. (Doc. 82 at 6.)

Plaintiff declares that the requested records are “not equally available to me and [] not 

obtainable from Defendants through a Request for Production of Documents, nor from my 

central file.” (Id. at 2 ¶1.) Plaintiff also declares that “[t]he documents and other relevant 

material requested [are] kept and filed away at CCI unavailable to me and the Defendants.” 

(Id. at 2 ¶1.) Plaintiff refers the court to his Exhibit A as evidence.

Discussion

This is Plaintiff’s third request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff’s 

first request, filed on March 3, 2014, was denied by the court on March 6, 2014, without 

prejudice to renewal of the request. (Docs. 76, 77.) Plaintiff was advised in the court’s order 

that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to make another request for the issuance of a records subpoena he 

may file a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with 

specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that 

the records are only obtainable through that third party.” (Id. at 2:13-16.) Plaintiff was also 

advised in the court’s order that “the Court will consider granting such a request only if the 

documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not 

obtainable from Defendants through a request for production of documents [or from] Plaintiff’s 

central file at the prison, to which he is entitled to access.” (Id. at 2:8-12.) 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 83 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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’s second request, filed on March 24, 2014, was denied by the court on March 

31, 2014, without prejudice, because Plaintiff failed to comply with the March 6, 2014 order. 

(Docs. 80, 81.) Plaintiff failed to show that the records he seeks are only obtainable through 

Defendants’ counsel, not equally available to Plaintiff, not obtainable from Defendants through 

a request for production of documents, and not obtainable from Plaintiff’s central file at the 

prison. (Id. at 2:26-3:2.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file “another request in compliance 

with [the March 31, 2014 order] and the court’s order of March 6, 2014.” (Id. at 3:II-2.)

Plaintiff’s third request contains exhibits consisting of Defendants’ (Busby, Davis, 

Hopkins, and Duffy) Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of 

Documents, Set One. (Doc. 82, Exh. A.) The court has reviewed the exhibits and finds no 

evidence supporting Plaintiff’s contentions that the materials he seeks are kept at CCI or are 

obtainable through issuance of a subpoena. It appears to the court that Plaintiff has already 

requested and received the relevant materials available through his Request for Production of 

Documents.

Plaintiff seeks documents and other materials concerning the August 11, 2005 incident 

at issue in this action. In response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, 

Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with (1) a list from the personnel assignment 

sergeant at CCI of individuals assigned to work in Building six, seven, and eight of 4A-yard 

during second and third watch on August 11, 2005 (Doc. 82 at 68-69); (2) Incident Report log# 

CCI-IVA-05-08-333 concerning the August 11, 2005 incident at issue (Id. at 71-82); and (3) 

Plaintiff’s staff complaint log# CCI-0-05-02644, concerning the August 11, 2005 incident at 

issue (Id. at 84-89). 

Plaintiff also requested from Defendants, in his Request for Production of Documents,

“[a]ny and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the use of MK-9 Foggers 

OC pepper spray or other chemical agents by Tehachapi staff,” (Interrogatory1 No. 7, Doc. 82 

at 12, 23, 35, 47), and “[a]ny and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the 

 

1 All of Plaintiff’s discovery requests in his combined Interrogatories/Request for Production of 

Documents, Set One, are titled as Interrogatories.

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 83 Filed 04/24/14 Page 3 of 4
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

use of force by Tehachapi staff,” (Interrogatory No. 8, Doc. 82 at 12-13, 23, 35, 47), and each 

of the Defendants responded that they “requested the relevant documents from CCI, but they 

could not find any from the relevant time period [and i]f any documents are found, I will 

supplement my response.” (Responses to Interrogatories No. 7 & 8, Doc. 82 at 12-13, 23-24, 

35-36, 47-48.) Plaintiff also requested a list of “all Correctional Sgt.’s names that worked on 

the date of the incident second and third watch 8-11-05 at Tehachapi 4A Yard Ad-Seg in 

Buildings Six, Seven, and Eighth, and list all Correctional Sgt.’s names who decontaminated 

plaintiff after he was exposed to the OC pepper spray (Interrogatory No. 21, Doc. 82 at 16-17, 

27-28, 40-41, 51-52.), and each of the Defendants responded that they “requested a copy of the 

administrative segregation logbook for the relevant time period from CCI, but due to the age of 

the requested information, they were unable to find a copy of the logbook [and i]f any 

responsive documents are found, I will supplement my response.” (Responses to Interrogatory 

No. 21, Doc. 82 at 17, 28, 40, 52.) The court finds Defendants’ responses to these requests to 

be sufficient. Defendants cannot produce documents that do not exist or cannot be found.

Plaintiff has not specified which documents and materials he expects to obtain through 

a subpoena that he has not already requested and received through his Request for Production 

of Documents. The court will not issue a subpoena directed to L.L. Schulteis, Warden of CCI, 

that duplicates requests for materials already provided to Plaintiff by Defendants, or found to 

be unavailable at CCI. Therefore, Plaintiff’s third request for issuance of a subpoena shall be 

denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s third request 

for the issuance of a subpoena, filed on April 14, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 83 Filed 04/24/14 Page 4 of 4