Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02317/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02317-16/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT BENYAMINI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

O’BRIAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2317 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion in which he seeks (1) an extension of time to answer the 

defendants’ first set of discovery, (2) leave to electronically file, (3) service of a subpoena on 

non-party Folsom State Prison, and (4) appointment of counsel. ECF No. 73 at 4-5. Defendants 

have not responded. 

I. Motion for Extension of Time 

 On December 29, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to answer discovery. 

ECF No. 71. The court dismissed plaintiff’s motion based on the ground that he had not 

identified the discovery requests he sought the extension of time to answer. ECF No. 72. 

Plaintiff has now filed another motion seeking an extension of time to respond to discovery. ECF 

No. 73. 

Plaintiff’s new motion for extension is nearly identical to his previous motion. He adds 

that he is seeking an extension to respond to the first set of discovery requests from defendants 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Hammer, O’Brian, and Reynolds. Id. at 1. However, plaintiff has not identified when his 

responses were due, and it appears, but is not clear, that he has already received one extension to 

respond to these requests (ECF No. 67). It is also unclear whether the reason plaintiff requires 

additional time is because he is still attempting to obtain documents from Folsom State Prison. 

ECF No. 73 at 2-3, 5. 

Rather than dismissing plaintiff’s motion again, the court will direct plaintiff to file a 

declaration addressing when the responses were originally due, whether these are the same 

requests he previously received additional time to respond to, and why he needs the extension. 

Plaintiff is advised that the fact that defendants have been granted several extensions of time to 

respond to his discovery requests does not establish good cause to grant his request unless the 

extensions impacted his ability to respond. 

II. Motion for Leave to Electronically File 

Although the Eastern District of California is an electronic management/filing district, 

unrepresented persons are required to file and serve paper documents unless the assigned District 

Judge or Magistrate Judge grants leave to utilize electronic filing. Local Rule 133(a) & (b)(2). A 

request to use electronic filing by a pro se party as an exception to the rule may be made as a 

written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the requested exception. Local Rule 

133(b)(3). 

Plaintiff’s motion sets forth the reasons he is requesting permission to electronically file. 

ECF No. 73 at 4. However, the motion does not make clear whether plaintiff is familiar with the 

requirements applicable to electronic filing in this court or whether he is aware of the hardware 

and software needed for electronic filing. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a 

declaration in support of his motion that addresses whether he is aware of the requirements for 

electronic filing and whether he has access to the necessary hardware and software. 

III. Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum 

Plaintiff seeks a court order issuing a subpoena duces tecum and presumably service of 

the subpoena by the U.S. Marshal upon non-party Folsom State Prison. ECF No. 73 at 2-3. 

Plaintiff states that he is asking for “all documentations in regards to the said matter alongside of 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

all grievance forms, request forms any videos made in regards to the situation” and “all video 

complaints 602 grievances ever filed and what have you not.” Id. at 2-3. The court construes the 

request as one for a signed subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. 

A non-party may be compelled to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant 

to a subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In order to obtain documents in this 

way, plaintiff must fill out subpoena forms and ensure that each person is served with the 

subpoena by a non-party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b). If the person’s attendance is required, plaintiff 

must tender to each person “the fees for one day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law.” 

Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per day, 28 

U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. See Dixon 

v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff has not submitted a subpoena signed by the Clerk of the Court. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) requires that “[t]he clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in 

blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service.” Therefore, at the 

outset, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to send plaintiff a blank subpoena form. A 

subpoena may direct a non-party, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to produce 

documents or other tangible objects for inspection. 

Limitations on a subpoena include the relevance of the information sought as well as the 

burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 

45. A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear identification 

of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified 

third-party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO PC, 2010 WL 1948560, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC, 2010 WL 

148703, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended 

to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with 

a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991); see also, U.S. 

v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of 

compliance with subpoena to non-party). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605. 

Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, 

“[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not 

taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett, 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In order for the court to consider ordering the 

United States Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum on a non-party, plaintiff must submit to 

the court a completed subpoena form and the requisite fee. The form must describe the items to 

be produced with reasonable particularity and designate a reasonable time, place, and manner for 

production. Plaintiff must also show that he has not or cannot receive the documents he seeks by 

way of discovery propounded upon defendants. Failure to do so will result in denial of the 

motion. 

Plaintiff’s current motion will be denied without prejudice to a motion in the proper form. 

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most pro se plaintiffs, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, 

do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance 

of counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances 

and plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date this order is filed to file a declaration in 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

support of his request for an extension of time to submit discovery responses (ECF No. 73). The 

declaration should address (1) when the responses were originally due, (2) whether these are the 

same requests he previously received additional time to respond to, and (3) why he needs the 

extension. 

 2. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date this order is filed to file a declaration in 

support of his request for permission to use the court’s electronic filing system (ECF No. 73). 

The declaration should address whether he is aware of the requirements for electronic filing and 

whether he has access to the necessary hardware and software. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 73) is denied without 

prejudice to a motion in proper form. 

 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff a signed but otherwise blank 

subpoena duces tecum form with this order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3). 

 5. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 73) is denied. 

DATED: March 17, 2015 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 5 of 5