Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-54/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 David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Discovery closed on December 15, 2014. 

On January 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the issuance of subpoenas duces 

tecum. In attached documents, Plaintiff submits a subpoena addressed to Institutional Gang 

Investigator Lt. Soloman Pina. The subpoena seeks documents related to Plaintiff’s gang review and 

investigations.

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TASSEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

(Document 147)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 148 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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).

Plaintiff’s subpoena must be denied because it is untimely. Discovery in this action closed on 

December 15, 2014.

Even if timely, however, the request is insufficient. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he 

sought the requested information from Defendants through a request for the production of documents, 

and, if he has done so, he has not filed a motion to compel the production of the documents. While the 

Court recognizes that Plaintiff has served voluminous discovery and moved to compel further 

responses, the Court will not sift thought Plaintiff’s discovery to determine whether this information 

was requested at some point. The Court has provided Plaintiff with the standard for requesting a 

subpoena on at least two prior occasions. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 148 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 148 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 3