Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554-4/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

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

Plaintiff Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action. Plaintiff filed this action in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 13, 2013. On October 2, 

2014, the case was removed to this Court. On October 5, 2015, the Court issued Findings and 

Recommendations that recommended the case proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against 

Defendants Molina and Hosman, and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action. 

On November 19, 2015, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full. Defendants 

thereafter filed an answer on December 16, 2015.

Accordingly, on December 22, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. The 

deadline to conduct discovery was set for May 23, 2016. On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant 

motion for issuance of a blank Subpoena Duces Tecum (“SDT”). Plaintiff seeks a SDT directed to the 

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. MOLINA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01554 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

CDCR Headquarters Custodian of Record. Plaintiff seeks a “blank” SDT for production of unidentified 

documents and things.

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

the production of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things from a 

nonparty, 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 or items

sought from the nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants 

through a request for the production of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible 

things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Defendants object to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is 

the next required step. If the Court rules that the documents, electronically stored information, and/or 

tangible things are discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and control of them, 

Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a)(1). Alternatively, if the Court rules 

that the documents or items are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

In this case, Plaintiff’s request must be denied. First, Plaintiff’s request is premature. 

Discovery has only just commenced. Initial disclosures are not due until February 8, 2016, and the 

discovery cutoff date is not until May 23, 2016. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the documents, 

whatever they may be, are not equally available to him, or that they are not obtainable from 

Defendants. Second, Plaintiff fails to identify the documents he seeks. Thus, it is impossible to 

determine whether the documents or things sought are discoverable. In addition, the Court will not 

grant an open-ended “blank” discovery request such as Plaintiff seeks. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2