Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01406/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01406-4/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAAC R. BROWN,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

I. LEYVA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1406-CKJ

ORDER

The Clerk of the Court has docketed a February 9, 2010, letter from Plaintiff as a

Motion for Subpoena. See Doc. # 43. The letter refers to discovery (North Kern State Prison

Infirmary document and St. Francis Hospital document), but makes no requests regarding

those documents. 

The letter also indicates that Plaintiff would like to subpoena specified people and

court transcripts. The Court notes that Rule 45(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that the clerk

shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it. Plaintiff’s

indigent status does not affect the applicability of this rule. 

However, the issuance of subpoenas may not violate other rulings of the Court. The

Court scheduled an initial discovery deadline of November 20, 2009. In setting that deadline,

the Court ordered that “[n]o discovery shall take place after that date without leave of Court

upon good cause shown.” Doc. # 26, p. 1. At the request of the parties, the deadline was

extended to February 19, 2010. It setting that deadline, the Court again ordered that “[n]o

discovery shall take place after that date without leave of Court upon good cause shown.”

Case 1:07-cv-01406-CKJ Document 44 Filed 02/26/10 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

1

Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff is seeking to obtain transcripts by subpoena.

However, the issuance of a subpoena is not the appropriate manner to obtain transcripts.

Rather, transcripts could be obtained from defense/appellate counsel in the criminal matter

or by purchasing the transcripts from the court reporter(s). Another court has found that a

plaintiff’s "obligations, even as an indigent litigant, to finance his own litigation expenses

cannot be arbitrarily thrust upon defendants." Rivera v. DiSabato, 92 F.Supp. 38, 40 (D.N.J.

1997). Similarly, Plaintiff’s obligations to finance his own litigation (i.e., the potential

purchase of the transcripts) cannot be arbitrarily placed on a third party (i.e., the Superior

Court or the court reporter). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "the

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized

by Congress[.]" United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2089, 48

L.Ed.2d 666 (1976). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize the

expenditure of public funds for an indigent party's litigation expenses, including discovery.

See e.g., In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (Section 1915 "does not give the

litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government expense."). 

- 2 -

Doc. # 39, p.2. Plaintiff has not requested an extension of the deadline. The Court finds it

is not appropriate, therefore, to direct the Clerk of the Court to provide the subpoenas to

Plaintiff.1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Subpoena [Doc. # 43] is DENIED.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-01406-CKJ Document 44 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2