Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00551-10/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 

TED DARNELL DANIELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0551 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison Solano (CSP-SOL), 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This order addresses plaintiff’s request that the United States Marshal personally serve his 

proposed subpoenas duces tecum, and plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. For the 

reasons set forth below, both motions are denied without prejudice but counsel for defendant 

Lotersztain is directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of his medical records that defendant 

independently subpoenaed. 

 II. Request for Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum 

 By order filed April 30, 2020, this court granted plaintiff’s request for three signed 

subpoena forms, and informed plaintiff of the showing he must make to obtain the assistance of 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 7
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 

the United States Marshal in serving the completed subpoenas. ECF No. 52. In response,1

plaintiff filed one completed subpoena that seeks a full copy of his medical records, which were 

previously obtained by counsel for defendant Dr. Mariana Lotersztain,2 Deputy California 

Attorney General Amie McTavish (hereafter “defense counsel”). Plaintiff requests that the 

subpoena be served on: (1) defendant Lotersztain, through defense counsel, id., and (2) Mr. Marc 

A. Weeks, Supervisor HRT II, CSP-SOL Health Records Unit. Id. at 7; see also ECF No. 51. 

Plaintiff also requests issuance of a subpoena on the California Medical Board to obtain any 

evidence that defendant Lotersztain has been professionally disciplined. 

 The extended discovery deadline in this case is now July 31, 2020. ECF No. 49. Due to 

this extended time, plaintiff’s prior motion for discovery was denied without prejudice. ECF No. 

52. As plaintiff was previously informed, to obtain service of a proposed subpoena by the U.S. 

Marshal, a pro se plaintiff must clearly identify the proposed recipient and the requested 

documents, and must demonstrate that the requested documents are relevant to the issues in the 

case and obtainable through the person subpoenaed. ECF No. 52 at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45). 

 Review of plaintiff’s prior filings demonstrates that he has been attempting for some time 

to obtain a complete copy of his medical records from defense counsel, as well as to obtain an 

Olson review3

 of his medical records. See ECF Nos. 48, 51. In response to plaintiff’s second 

request for production propounded on defendant Lotersztain, ECF No. 51 at 13-7, defense 

counsel responded in part that she would provide plaintiff with a copy of his medical records, id. 

at 27-9, a representation plaintiff has acknowledged, id. at 2:4. However, the status of this 

production remains unclear. 

 Plaintiff’s request from defendant for a copy of his medical records, which were 

1

 Plaintiff’s request for service of his proposed subpoenas duces tecum and supporting 

documents are not on the court’s docket but have been submitted only for this court’s 

consideration. 

2

 Findings and Recommendations are pending that recommend the dismissal of all other 

defendants in this action. See ECF No. 27. 

3

 An Olson review refers to the right of California inmates to inspect and copy non-confidential 

records maintained in their central and medical files, as established by In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 

3d 783 (1974). 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 7
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 

independently subpoenaed by defense counsel, was properly made in his second production 

request pursuant to Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In contrast, subpoenas under Rule 

45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are intended for nonparties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s proposed Rule 45 subpoena is inappropriately directed to defendant 

Lotersztain and will be denied on that basis. 

 However, in light of defense counsel’s agreement to provide plaintiff with a copy of his 

medical records, the court will, in part, construe the instant motion as a motion to compel 

discovery pursuant to Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defense counsel will be 

directed to provide plaintiff with a complete copy of his medical records, as obtained by 

defendant, within fourteen days after the filing date of this order, and to file and serve a statement 

of compliance. If the records were previously produced to plaintiff, defense counsel shall so 

state. 

 Plaintiff has also actively sought an Olson review of his medical records, and has 

corresponded directly with Marc Weeks, Supervisor HRT II in the CSP-SOL Health Records 

Unit. See e.g. ECF No. 48 at 6-19; ECF No. 51 at 13-23, 33-5. Plaintiff’s exhibits indicate that 

the most recent correspondence was plaintiff’s April 10, 2020 response to Weeks’ April 2, 2020 

memorandum announcing a temporary suspension of Olson reviews of healthcare records due to 

the current COVID-19 health crisis unless an inmate can show, with “substantiation,” that the 

records are needed “urgently for a legal matter.” See ECF No. 51 at 33-5 (includes plaintiff’s 

March 3, 2020 request); ECF No. 48 at 14. Plaintiff’s response noted the instant legal proceeding 

and was forwarded to Weeks on April 13, 2020. ECF No. 51 at 35. It remains unclear whether 

plaintiff has obtained access to his medical records through an Olson review. 

 As a general rule, the court will not issue a subpoena for a prisoner’s prison medical or 

other records unless he has demonstrated an inability to obtain them through regular prison 

procedures. See e.g. Glass v. Diaz, 2007 WL 2022034, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53535 

(E.D. Cal. July 9, 2007) (where prison medical records are “equally available to plaintiff, plaintiff 

must attempt to obtain them through the proper prison channels” before seeking court 

intervention based on a “showing that he has been unable to obtain these records on his own”); 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 7
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 

Valenzuela v. Smith, 2006 WL 403842, at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6078 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 

2006) (“[d]efendants cannot be compelled to produce documents . . . that are equally available to 

plaintiff in his prison medical file”); Singleton v. Hedgepath, 2011 WL 1806515, at *8 (E.D. Cal. 

May 10, 2011) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ production of documents from 

his prison file because the documents were “equally accessible to both parties”); Cortinas v. 

Huerta, 2019 WL 6050833, at *4, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198712 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2019) 

(declining to compel defendants to produce plaintiff’s prison medical records without a showing 

of plaintiff’s “efforts to request and access these files through an Olson review or a subpoena 

duces tecum”). 

 Thus, a subpoena may be served on Mr. Weeks only upon a showing that plaintiff’s 

efforts to review and copy his medical records through regular prison procedures have been 

unsuccessful. See id. Although plaintiff has submitted numerous exhibits demonstrating such 

efforts, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to clearly identify the chronology and substance of these 

efforts, including the precise medical records sought, the responses plaintiff received, and 

whether plaintiff has exhausted all available procedures. For example, although plaintiff’s 

proposed subpoena to Mr. Weeks generally seeks “medical records” in his possession 

“concerning” plaintiff, his most recent correspondence with the CSP-SOL HRT (effectively Mr. 

Weeks) indicates that plaintiff is seeking limited medical records. See ECF No. 51 at 33. Due to 

the lack of clarity regarding plaintiff’s efforts, the responses he received and the precise medical 

records he continues to seek, his request for service of a subpoena on Mr. Marc Weeks will be 

denied without prejudice. 

 Nevertheless, in light of the temporary suspension of Olson review requests at CSP-SOL 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this order shall serve as further substantiation that plaintiff’s 

medical records are relevant to the instant legal proceeding which has a discovery deadline of 

July 31, 2020. 

 Finally, plaintiff’s proposed subpoena directed to the California Medical Board does not 

meet the threshold requirements of relevance and unavailability by other means. Defendant 

Lotersztain’s professional disciplinary history, if any, is not relevant to the quality of medical care 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 7
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 

she provided plaintiff. Moreover, some such information is publicly available by a search of 

defendant’s name on the Board’s website4 and through further inquiry by telephone or letter.5 

Indeed, it appears that plaintiff has made such an inquiry in letter form. See ECF No. 51 at 10. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for service of a subpoena on the California Medical Board 

will be denied. 

 III. Request for Appointment of Counsel 

 Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel, particularly to assist him in obtaining 

discovery if the court rejects plaintiff’s proposed subpoenas. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff argues, inter 

alia, that appointed counsel could retain a medical expert who would address the complex 

medical issues in this case concerning the use of topical steroids. Plaintiff also notes that he is 

facing a potential dispute concerning his current prescription for topical steroids. In addition, 

plaintiff notes his indigence and lack of access to the prison law library due to the current 

COVID-19 health crisis. This is plaintiff’s first request for appointment of counsel. 

 District courts are without authority to require an attorney to represent an indigent 

prisoner in a civil rights case. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) 

Although the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1), this is appropriate only in certain “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 

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

1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as his ability to articulate his claims pro se 

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. Id. 

4

 See https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Breeze/License_Verification.aspx City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 

386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state 

agency not subject to reasonable dispute.”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (this court may take 

judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned). 

5

 See https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Consumers/Public_Disclosure.aspx 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 7
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 

6 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this 

time. Proceeding pro se, plaintiff has propounded detailed and substantive discovery requests on 

defendant, while also independently pursuing the information he seeks through an Olson review 

and from the California Medical Board. Appointed counsel would not be of significant assistance 

in the discovery process, and whether appointed counsel could obtain the court’s approval for 

expert witness fees is not a foregone conclusion. Moreover, as plaintiff himself notes, “this case 

involves simple and straightforward facts concerning two distinct acts of ‘Deliberate 

Indifference[.]’ Plaintiff [has] these certain specific time[s] and date[s] when he was prescribed 

treatment with Prednisolone corticosteroid and the time[s] and [date[s] he did not.” ECF No. 53 

at 1. Hence, while it is not possible at this juncture to assess plaintiff’s likelihood of success on 

the merits of his claims, he has demonstrated that he is capable of articulating and pursing his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Therefore, plaintiff’s instant 

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the United States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s 

proposed subpoenas duces tecum, ECF No. 55, is: (a) denied without prejudice as to defendant 

Lotersztain, subject to the directive below; (b) denied without prejudice to the custodian of CSPSOL’s prison medical records (currently Mr. Marc Weeks); and (c) denied with prejudice as to 

the California Medical Board. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion directed to defendant Lotersztain is construed, in part, as a motion to 

compel discovery under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; so construed, defense counsel 

shall, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order, provide plaintiff with a copy of 

his medical records as independently obtained by defendant, and shall file and serve a statement 

reflecting such production. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 53, is denied without 

prejudice. 

 4. This order shall serve as substantiation to prison officials that plaintiff’s medical 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 7
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 

7 

records are relevant to the instant legal proceeding which has a discovery deadline of July 31, 

2020. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2020 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 7