Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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 05cv513-L(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv513 L (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING

ORDER [Doc. No. 64] AND REQUEST

TO THE CLERK OF COURT FOR

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND U.S.

MARSHAL FORM 285 [Doc. No. 65]

Plaintiff Jackson, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks to (1) amend the scheduling

order regarding the discovery cutoff date and pretrial motions filing deadline [Doc. No. 64]; and (2)

obtain the forms to subpoena witnesses and depose defendants before trial [Doc. No. 65]. Regarding the

second request, plaintiff requests that the Clerk of this Court send him the following forms: deposition

subpoena, subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. 

For good cause showing, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order

and GRANTS his request for forms. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. All discovery, including experts, shall be completed by all parties on or before

May 4, 2007;

2. All other pretrial motions must be filed on or before June 4, 2007; 

3. All other provisions of the January 9, 2007 Amended Scheduling Order remain in full force

and effect; and

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 66 Filed 04/11/07 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

2 05cv513-L(NLS)

4. The Clerk of Court shall forward to plaintiff ten subpoena duces tecum forms and ten U.S.

Marshal 285 forms. 

Plaintiff is advised, however, that his in forma pauperis status does not waive the payment of

fees or expenses for witnesses. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is

responsible to pay for any costs associated with the subpoenas and depositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 66 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2