Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING OPPOSITION TO 

SUBPOENA 

(ECF No. 70)

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 10.) This matter

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Dwayne Tordsen for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and against Defendants Dwayne Tordsen, 

Coker, Leach and Day for subjecting Plaintiff to conditions of confinement that amounted 

to punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 28.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ subpoenas for documents, 

information, or objects, which the Court construes as a motion to quash. (ECF No. 70.) 

Defendants did not respond, and the time for doing so has passed. This matter is 

deemed submitted.

The subpoenas at issue sought medical and mental health records concerning 

Plaintiff from Atascadero State Hospital, the California Department of Corrections and 

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 75 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Rehabilitation, and the Kings County Jail. Plaintiff objects to the subpoenas on the 

grounds that the requested records are not relevant, his medical information is protected 

by HIPPA, and the subpoenas were untimely under the Court’s discovery and 

scheduling order (ECF No. 40). Additionally, Plaintiff contends he already has provided 

Defendants with his relevant medical files, and there is no need for Defendants to 

request his entire medical and psychiatric file.

The subpoenas commanded that production of Plaintiff’s records take place on 

May 30, 2014. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on June 2, 2014. Accordingly, at the time 

Plaintiff filed his motion, the Court could not strike the subpoenas because they already 

had been executed. Plaintiff does not seek any other relief with respect to the 

subpoenaed materials. Plaintiff’s opposition is moot.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 70) is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 75 Filed 10/31/14 Page 2 of 2