Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884-24/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

Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez, and Adair for claims of negligence and deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a request to the Clerk of Court for subpoenas in order to 

serve four unidentified non-party witnesses with depositions by written questions. On May 11, 2016, 

the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas. The Court explained that Plaintiff must comply 

with Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to notify the 

Court and make a showing, under penalty of perjury, that he is able and willing to retain and 

compensate an officer to take responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). 

ROBIN DASENBROOK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. ENENMOH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01884 DAD DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION

[ECF No. 175]

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 176 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification. Plaintiff states he is unclear on the 

procedure for deposing witnesses by written questions. Plaintiff states it was his understanding that 

due to his in forma pauperis status, the U.S. Marshals would simply send the depositions with a 

subpoena attached to the litigation coordinator at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. 

Plaintiff states he does not understand the Court’s statement that depositions by written questions 

entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their responses. Plaintiff believes 

the U.S. Marshals service just mails the subpoenas and rarely delivers them in person. He requests 

clarification on the costs he would need to pay.

Plaintiff is advised that in order to depose a witness by written questions under Rule 31, he

must arrange for an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28 to conduct the deposition. Plaintiff 

“must deliver to the officer a copy of all the questions served and of the notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 

31(b). The officer must then “promptly proceed in the manner provided in Rule 30(c), (e), and (f) to: 

(1) take the deponent’s testimony in response to the questions; (2) prepare and certify the deposition; 

and (3) send it to the party, attaching a copy of the questions and of the notice.” Id. Plaintiff, as the 

proponent, bears the costs associated with the deposition. In forma pauperis status does not entitle 

Plaintiff to free services such as scheduling, conducting and recording the deposition. If Plaintiff 

wishes to conduct depositions by written questions, he must do so in compliance with the rules. If 

after reviewing the rules, Plaintiff believes he can comply with the rules, he shall notify the Court and 

make an offer of proof that he is financially able and willing to retain an officer to take responses and 

prepare the record. Plaintiff should note that insofar as the individuals he seeks to depose are nonparty witnesses, he will also be required to pay attendance and/or mileage fees pursuant to Rule 45. If 

Plaintiff is unable and/or unwilling, the issue of depositions by written questions has come to an end. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 176 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days to 

file a motion to depose witnesses by written questions accompanied by an offer of proof 

demonstrating he has the financial ability to comply with the rules and is willing to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 176 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3