Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SCHULTZ,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILTATION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00988-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 

SUBPOENA

(ECF No. 54)

Plaintiff Kenneth Schultz, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison 

(“CSP”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on a claim of medical indifference against Defendant 

Kim, M.D.

On June 4, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena to depose 

alleged percipient witness, Ms. Lawrence, who had been a CSP medical staff member at 

times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff was, however, given leave to make a further 

showing in support of his ability to locate Ms. Lawrence and to retain and compensate a 

deposition officer to take written or oral responses and prepare the record.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 11, 2014 statement in support of subpoena to 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 55 Filed 07/22/14 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

depose Ms. Lawrence. 

Plaintiff asserts that on June 10th and June 20th he submitted requests to prison 

staff seeking the full name and employee number of Ms. Lawrence and that he has not yet 

received any response. This alone is not sufficient to show Plaintiff has information that 

would enable the Marshal to serve Ms. Lawrence with a subpoena.

Plaintiff asserts he has $34.85 in his prison trust account and is willing to make 

payments through his trust account to retain and compensate a deposition officer. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30; Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. This does not show Plaintiff can retain and compensate a

deposition officer. He apparently has not located an individual willing and able to serve as a 

Rule 28(a) deposition officer and be compensated from periodic prison trust account

payments. He also has failed to show an ability to pay attendance and mileage fees to a 

Rule 45 non-party witness. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to 

services such as scheduling, conducting and recording the deposition.

Plaintiff offers to submit his written deposition questions to the Defendant. Plaintiff 

was previously advised such non-party discovery may not be directed to Defendant. (See 

ECF No. 48.) 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s July 11, 2014 statement in support of 

discovery subpoena is deficient. His request for a subpoena to depose Ms. Lawrence (ECF 

No. 54) is DENIED without prejudice on the same grounds as previously stated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 55 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 2