Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907-7/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G.A. THUMSER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-1907-LKK-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants Thumser, Dickinson, Cate, Duncan, Tapiz, Coyle, and 

Van Heerde violated his Eighth Amendment rights by either implementing or enforcing a policy 

that drastically reduced or eliminated his outdoor excise time and rehabilitation therapy from 

March 29, 2010 through March 8, 2011. See Oct. 11, 2012 Screening Ord., ECF No. 28. Plaintiff 

has submitted a subpoena duces tecum form requesting that it be served on a non-party by the 

U.S. Marshal. He has also moved to join additional plaintiffs in this action pursuant to Rule 19 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s requests, as discussed below, are denied. 

I. Subpoena Duces Tecum 

 Plaintiff has submitted a subpoena duces tecum form directed to non-party “California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at CMF-Vacaville Prison.” ECF Nos. 57, 62. 

Plaintiff requests that the court order the U.S. Marshal to serve the subpoena because of his in 

forma pauperis status. Id. However, “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 74 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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

litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 

(9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). Because the in 

forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for service of 

subpoenas, plaintiff’s request for service of the subpoena by the U.S. Marshal, free of cost, must 

be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Frazier v. Redding Police Dep’t, No. 2:11-cv-1351-AC, 2013 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3568, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (“fees/costs associated with subpoenas 

not waived based on plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status,” citing Tedder). 

 There are, however, “limited circumstances” under which a court might authorize personal 

service of a subpoena duces tecum by the U.S. Marshal on behalf of a pro se prisoner litigant 

proceeding in forma pauperis. Frazier, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3568 at *2; see also Lopez v. 

Schwarzenegger, Case No. S-09-cv-1760 MCE GGH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2957, at *21-22 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (discussing the limitations on the court’s authorization of a subpoena 

duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff). In issuing such a subpoena, the court 

must ensure that the party serving it takes “reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or 

expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Mindful of this duty, the 

court notes that plaintiff’s request does not show that the requested documents are not available to 

him and not obtainable from defendants through discovery. Thus, plaintiff has not shown that he 

took reasonable steps to obtain the requested documents prior to requesting service of the 

subpoena. Accordingly, this case does not fall within the limited circumstances under which a 

court might order the U.S. Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum. 

 For these reasons, plaintiff’s request that the U.S. Marshal serve a subpoena duces tecum 

is denied. 

II. Rule 19 Joinder Motion 

 Plaintiff also moves pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to join 

nine additional inmate plaintiffs. ECF No. 53. The court previously explained to plaintiff, at 

length, that he could not join additional plaintiffs and that this action would proceed with plaintiff 

as the sole plaintiff: 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 74 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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

 Heilman, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, cannot “fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1308 

(9th Cir. 1982) (stating that a party must assert his own rights, not those of third 

parties) (citing Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 80 

(1978)); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1974) (“The Art. III judicial power 

exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining 

party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal 

court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has 

suffered ‘some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal 

action . . . .’”); see also Swygert v. Veal, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34655, 2008 WL 

724193, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2008) (“It is well established that a layperson 

cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. . . . This rule becomes almost 

absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and 

proceeding pro se.”). Moreover, plaintiff has not complied with the requirements 

of Rule 23. This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and 

instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff, Thomas 

Heilman. 

 The additional nine plaintiffs, who have filed declarations consenting to 

“being included” in this litigation, may not be joined in this action, and instead, 

must proceed with their own separate lawsuits. See Dckt. No. 1 at 23-30. 

Generally, “Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the joinder 

of plaintiffs in one action if: (1) the plaintiffs assert any right to relief arising out 

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; 

and (2) there are common questions of law or fact. If the test for permissive 

joinder is not satisfied, a court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, 

so long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance.” Coughlin v. 

Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted); see Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On 

motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. 

The court may also sever any claim against a party.”). However, actions brought 

by multiple prisoners in pro se present unique problems not presented by ordinary 

civil litigation. For example, transfer of one or more plaintiffs to different 

institutions or release on parole, as well as the challenges to communication 

among plaintiffs presented by confinement, may cause delay and confusion. 

 In addition, the interplay of the filing fee provisions in the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) suggests that prisoners may not bring multiplaintiff actions, but rather must each proceed separately. To proceed with a civil 

action each plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submit the affidavit and trust 

account statement required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The PLRA expressly requires 

that a prisoner, where proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the full amount of the 

filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). This provision reflected Congress’s intent to 

reduce the volume of frivolous prisoner litigation in the federal courts. Hubbard v. 

Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1196-97 (11th Cir. 2001); 141 Cong. Rec. S7526 (daily ed. 

May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl) (“Section 2 will require prisoners to 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 74 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the federal judicial system 

by paying a small filing fee on commencement of lawsuits. In doing so, the 

provision will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will 

force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively.”); see 

also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627-28 (9th Cir. 2002). In order not to 

undermine the PLRA’s deterrent purpose, courts have agreed that prisonerplaintiffs who proceed together in one action must each pay the full filing fee. 

E.g., Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2004); Hubbard, 262 

F.3d at 1197-98. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(3) provides that “in no event shall 

the filing fee collected exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute for the 

commencement of a civil action.” If multiple prisoners were permitted to proceed 

with a joint action, and each paid the fees collected would exceed the amount 

permitted by statute for commencement of the action, in violation of § 1915(b)(3). 

 To avoid the problems related to case-management and filing fees, 

permissive joinder of the named plaintiffs in this action is denied. 

ECF No. 14 at 2-4. Plaintiff now contends that joinder is “required” under Rule 19. Joinder, 

however, is not required, as this action concerns plaintiff’s rights only and additional plaintiffs 

need not be joined in order for the court to accord complete relief to the parties. Even if joinder 

was required, Rule 19(a) requires joinder only if “feasible.” For the reasons quoted above, 

joinder of the additional plaintiffs is not feasible in this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for 

joinder is denied. 

III. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for the U.S. Marshal to 

serve a subpoena duces tecum (ECF Nos. 57, 62) and for the joinder of nine additional plaintiffs 

(ECF No. 53) are denied. 

Dated: January 8, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 74 Filed 01/08/14 Page 4 of 4