Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00966-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY A. SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

(Doc. 17) 

Plaintiff Troy A. Sykes is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim against Defendant John Doe, Avenal State Prison (ASP) Food Services Head 

Manager, only. (See Docs. 14 & 15.) 

On October 24, 2024, this Court issued its order granting Plaintiff ninety (90) days within 

which to identify the John Doe defendant. (Doc. 16.) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 

document titled “Plaintiff’s Request for Motion of Subpoena for Name of (A.S.P.) Food Services 

Head Manager.” (Doc. 17.) 

//

//

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/03/25 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

II. DISCUSSION

As Plaintiff was previous advised, the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum 

requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations and “[d]irecting the Marshal’s 

Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.”

Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 

28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought, and the burden 

and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information. (See Doc. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff 

was also advised that a “motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by 

clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only 

through the identified third party.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff “requests Discovery from Defendants to produce name of John Doe who is 

the Food Services Head Manager or equivalent title at Avenal State Prison.” (Doc. 17 at 1.) 

Plaintiff also “requests the ninety days to file ‘notice of substitution’ begin when court receives 

Discovery of requested information of name of John Doe.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied

without prejudice. 

While the name of John Doe is relevant, Plaintiff has failed to identify any individual to 

whom a subpoena should be directed. His reference to “Defendants” is unclear because the 

previously named defendants, other than John Doe, have been dismissed from the action. (See

Doc. 15.) Nor has Plaintiff indicated that the name of the ASP Food Services Head Manager is 

“obtainable only through” a third party. See Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 

2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWISMS (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). 

Assuming Plaintiff cannot obtain the identity of “John Doe, ASP Food Services Head 

Manager” through other means,1 Plaintiff may resubmit his request for a subpoena to learn the 

identity of John Doe. Plaintiff must identify an individual to whom the subpoena should be 

directed,2and explain how a record identifying John Doe is “obtainable only through the 

1 Plaintiff may consider requesting the necessary information via a CDCR form 22.

2 Examples might include the warden, the institution’s litigation coordinator, or some other official at ASP 

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/03/25 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

identified third party.” To the extent Plaintiff believes the Court conducts discovery (see Doc. 17 

at 1 [“when court receives Discovery of requested information”]), he is mistaken. See Womack v. 

Virga, No. 2:11-cv-1030 MCE EFB P, 2012 WL 4465372, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (“The 

role of the court is not to conduct discovery or research for the parties”). If the Court issues a 

subpoena to any third party in the future, Plaintiff will be the recipient of the information sought 

by the subpoena rather than the Court. 

To allow Plaintiff sufficient time within which to either learn the identity of John Doe 

through other means or to resubmit a proper request for a subpoena, including the information 

referenced above, the Court will extend the stay for purposes of limited discovery an additional 

ninety days. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice; and

2. This action is STAYED an additional ninety (90) days to allow for limited discovery 

concerning the identity of “Defendant John Doe, ASP Food Service Head Manager”

and for the filing of a “notice of substitution” once that identity has been learned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

with knowledge and documentation concerning the individual employed as manager in the food services 

department.

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 3