Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-18/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06658-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL A RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS

DUCES TECUM, AND GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Docs. 171 and 172)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

FILE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM

PLAINTIFF ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007,

MARCH 9, 2007, AND MARCH 13, 2007

Plaintiff William Garcia (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion to compel a response to the subpoenas duces tecum he sent to non-parties D. Gamez, A.

Gonzalez, and C. M. Heck on February 22, 2007. Defendant Katukota did not file a response.

Plaintiff may not issue his own subpoenas. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Further, a properly

issued subpoena requires personal service to be effective. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b). Plaintiff’s

subpoenas are invalid because they were not issued by the court, and as a result, Gamez, Gonzalez,

and Heck had no obligation to respond to the subpoenas. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response

is therefore denied.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff references three letters he sent to the court. The letters

were received by the court on February 27, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 13, 2007, and were not

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 175 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2

filed in because letters to the court are generally improper. In light of the fact that plaintiff’s motion

to compel references the letters, the court will direct the Clerk’s Office to file them in so that they

are part of the record. Beyond this order, no further response to the letters by the court will be

forthcoming.

Also on April 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of (1) his motion seeking

the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum filed December 5, 2006, (2) his reply to defendant’s

opposition to his motion to compel filed December 21, 2006, and (3) the three letters received by the

court on February 27, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 13, 2007. “A judicially noticed fact must

be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial

jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “A court shall take judicial

notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).

The court may take judicial notice of court records and will therefore grant plaintiff’s request

to the extent that judicial notice of the filing of the documents is taken. Valerio v. Boise Cascade

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S.

1126 (1981). However, the court may not take judicial of the facts set forth in plaintiff’s filings, as

the facts are in dispute. Thus, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking judicial notice of the documents

to show that he has acted in good faith and with due diligence, plaintiff’s request is denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to his subpoenas duces tecum, filed April 9,

2007, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed April 9, 2007, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 175 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 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

3

3. The Clerk’s Office shall file in the letters received from plaintiff on February 27,

2007, March 9, 2007, and March 13, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 175 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3