Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01351/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01351-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P

vs.

REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff has exhibited sufficient

knowledge about his case such that appointment of counsel is not warranted. Plaintiff’s request

for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has also requested issuance of a subpoena duces tecum form for both

personal appearance and production of documents and things at trial or at a hearing “because the

1

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 19 Filed 12/02/11 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

things I need are at issue.” See request. The court construes the request as one for a signed

subpoena Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Plaintiff is informed: 

that the court cannot compel nonparties to provide plaintiff with

information but can order them to produce documents if properly

requested. Plaintiff may compel a person who is not a party to this

action to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant

to a subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In

order to do so, plaintiff must fill out subpoena forms and ensure

that each person is served with the subpoena by a non-party. 

Plaintiff must tender to each person “the fees for one day's

attendance and the mileage allowed by law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)

(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per

day, see 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a plaintiff

proceeding in forma pauperis. See Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478,

480 (9th Cir.1993). These requirements do not apply to a request

for production of documents from one party on any other party. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).” 

Roberts v. Paulson, 2010 WL 2632102 *1 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

The undersigned will instruct the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff a blank

subpoena form. 

[T]he court will consider ordering the United States Marshal to

serve a subpoena duces tecum on a non-party if plaintiff submits to

the court a completed subpoena form and the requisite fee. The

form must describe the items to be produced with reasonable

particularity and designate a reasonable time, place and manner for

their production.

Id. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 9, 2011, request for the appointment of counsel (Docket

No. 17) is denied;

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

2

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 19 Filed 12/02/11 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

2. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2011, request for a subpoena form (Docket No. 15) is

granted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a blank subpoena form

along with this order.

DATED: December 1, 2011

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:009/kly

fraz1351.31+

3

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 19 Filed 12/02/11 Page 3 of 3