Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354-7/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

MOU SENG SEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS 

DUCES TECUM

(ECF No. 37)

Plaintiff Mou Seng See (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Rivas, Roman, Rivera, and Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical 

care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting subpoenas duces tecum, filed 

June 13, 2024. (ECF No. 37.) Defendants have not had an opportunity to file a response, but the 

Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is requesting body worn camera and surveillance 

footage from CDCR of the named Defendants for the date of the incident at issue in this action. 

(ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff filed a 6A-22 Inmate Request for Interview to CSTAF ISU to preserve 

the body worn camera and surveillance footage multiple times. Plaintiff filed a request to inspect 

public records on October 2, 2023 and was told CDCR will be providing the responsive video. 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 38 Filed 06/17/24 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

Plaintiff was never shown anything. Plaintiff filed appeals and was told he would see the footage 

in the next 90 to 120 days. Plaintiff has not seen any video footage. Plaintiff is also requesting to 

inspect the Defendants’ personal records, history of misconduct, and appeals filed against 

Defendants involving their neglect and wrongdoing involving inmates. Plaintiff states that he 

cannot get these records or information on his own. All the information Plaintiff is requesting has 

to do with his case. (Id.)

Based on this filing, Plaintiff is requesting the issuance of third-party subpoenas 

requesting the specified video footage and documents for use in his case.

Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena 

commanding the production of documents from a non-party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of 

the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, 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 Defendant through a request for the production 

of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A request for the issuance of a records subpoena requires 

Plaintiff to: (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a 

showing that the records are only obtainable through that third party.

Plaintiff’s instant request does not meet these requirements. Although Plaintiff has 

identified the types of documents and video footage he seeks, Plaintiff has not identified which 

third party the subpoenas should be directed to, and Plaintiff has not established that these records 

are only obtainable through the specified third party. Based on his motion, it does not appear that 

Plaintiff has made any effort to submit a discovery request directly to any of Defendants or their 

attorney regarding the documents and video footage at issue. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas shall be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff 

may renew his request for third-party subpoenas by filing a motion that: (1) sets forth the specific

documents requested and from whom; (2) demonstrates that the documents are only obtainable 

through the third party; and (3) establish the relevance of the requested documents to any claim or 

defense.

///

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 38 Filed 06/17/24 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

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas duces tecum, (ECF No. 37), is 

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 38 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 3