Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336-19/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 26, 2019, the undersigned granted in part plaintiff’s 

motion to compel and ordered defendants to provide supplemental responses to Requests for 

Production 1 and 2. ECF No. 103 at 15. With respect to Request for Production 2, defendants 

were “required to clarify whether the absence of documents concerning adverse action taken 

against them by the CDCR is because no such documents exist or because the documents exist 

but are not in defendants’ possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 6. If responsive documents 

existed but were not in defendants’ possession, custody, or control, they were directed to identify 

the appropriate custodian of record. Id. In the event defendants’ supplemental response included 

the name of a custodian of record, defendants were to notify the court so that plaintiff could be 

allowed time to request service of a subpoena duces tecum on the custodian of record. Id. After 

the time for providing such notification passed without any notice from defendants, discovery 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 113 Filed 01/15/20 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 

closed and a deadline was set for defendants to resubmit their motion for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 108. Plaintiff has now filed two copies of a subpoena duces tecum addressed to 

litigation coordinator H. Cervantez that seeks copies of the documents at issue in Request for 

Production 2. ECF No. 110. 

 The court construes the filing of the subpoena as a request for service by the United States 

Marshals and the request will be denied. Since defendants did not advise the court that plaintiff 

had been provided with the identity of a custodian of record, it appears that their supplemental 

response was that responsive documents do not exist, and plaintiff has not provided any 

documentation demonstrating otherwise. Moreover, the subpoena states that good cause for the 

production of the requested documents exists because defendants’ response to his request was not 

plausible, further indicating that they responded that no such documents existed. Since it does not 

appear that serving the subpoena will yield additional responsive documents and discovery has 

already closed, the request to have the United States Marshals serve the subpoena duces tecum 

will be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for service by the United 

States Marshals, ECF No. 110, is denied. 

DATED: January 14, 2020 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 113 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2