Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-17/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 MOTION FOR ISSUANCE

OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

(Doc. 167)

ORDER REQUESTING DEFENDANT’S

COUNSEL REVIEW HIS CASE FILE, SEND

PLAINTIFF ANY MEDICAL RECORDS HE

HAS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND FILE A

STATUS REPORT WITH THE COURT,

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

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 December 5, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing the production of his

missing medical records. Defendant Katukota did not file a response. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the court may issues a subpoena

commanding the production of documents from a non-party. However, in this instance plaintiff is

seeking documents which are missing from his medical file. Plaintiff has submitted no information

concerning where the documents are or who has them. Absent information on who to serve with the

subpoena and where the records are located, the court cannot issue a subpoena. The court

understands that plaintiff is attempting to locate the missing documents but the court cannot direct

the production of documents when there has been no showing that they are in the care, custody, and

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 174 Filed 05/10/07 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 Identified as Ramerez in the complaint. 1

2

control of an individual or entity. A subpoena duces tecum may not be used to conduct an

investigation into missing records.

Defendant’s counsel also represented defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez in this 1

action. Those defendants were granted summary adjudication as to the claims against them on

March 15, 2006. As a result of the defense of this suit on behalf of defendants Snow, Nguyen,

Smith, and Ramirez, counsel’s file contains some medical records from plaintiff’s file. Counsel is

requested to review his case file and if the file contains any medical records relevant to plaintiff’s

claim against defendant Katukota, to send plaintiff copies of those records. If plaintiff does not have

the records, if the records are no longer in plaintiff’s medical file, and if defendant’s counsel does

not have possession of the records stemming from his representation of defendants Snow, Nguyen,

Smith, and Ramirez, there is nothing further the court can do at this time on the record before it.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena, filed December 5, 2006,

is DENIED; and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, defendant’s counsel

is requested to (1) review his case file, (2) send plaintiff any medical records relevant

to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Katukota, and (3) file a status report with the

court.

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 174 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2