Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806-5/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

JASON SAUNDERS, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5806 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROPOUND DISCOVERY OR

vs. SERVICE OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

J.W. FAIRMAN, et al., [Doc. 81]

Defendants.

 /

On April 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to propound discovery and a motion to serve

subpoenas duces tecum. Plaintiff makes this request so that he can ascertain the location of defendants

Saunders, Powers, and Fairman so that they may be served. Currently, seven defendants have been

served including defendants Johnson, Snell, Forener, Gonzalez, Smith, Nelson, and Maciel. Plaintiff

notes that his original complaint names Saunders, Fairman and Powers as three additional defendants.

On August 25, 2006, this court ordered that plaintiff be sent ten summonses and that plaintiff

serve the defendants. See, Document # 51. The plaintiff did not effectuate proper service on the

defendants. Subsequently, on November 27, 2006, the court determined that service was appropriate

for eight of the defendants : Snell, Smith, Nelson, Maciel, Forener, Gonzalez, Fairman and Johnson.

See, Document # 65. Fairman has not been served due to an inability to locate him. In the instant

motions, plaintiff asserts that all ten defendants should be served.

On March 28, 2008, defendants requested that the court screen plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 05/30/07 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

opposed this motion. However, in light of the confusion regarding the identity and location of the

defendants, the court is going to screen plaintiff’s compliant to determine whether plaintiff states a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Upon completion of the screening, the court will issue an order

outlining which defendants, if any, are properly named in the action. Because the court’s screening may

render plaintiff’s motions moot, plaintiff’s motions are is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s motions to propound discovery and serve subpoenas duces tecum are denied

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2