Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00892/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00892-2/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

Plaintiff has improperly put his signature on the line for the “issuing officer’s signature and

title.” Under Rule 45(c)(3), “the clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party

who requests it.” “That party must complete it before service.” Id. “An attorney may also issue and

sign a subpoena as an officer of: (A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or (B) a

court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is

authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.” Id. Plaintiff is neither the clerk of

court nor an attorney. Therefore, he may not sign a subpoena as an issuing officer. 

- 1 - 09cv892-LAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD STEVESON MOODY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-0892-LAB (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SERVE A

SUBPOENA & 

(2) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO RESPOND

vs.

PAULETTE FINANDER, Chief Medical

Officer, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff Floyd Steveson Moody, an incarcerated individual

proceeding pro se in this action, filed a motion for request to serve a subpoena pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. Pro. 45. (Doc. No. 72.) Plaintiff seeks to serve the subpoena on a non-party, the

custodian of medical records at the Pleasant Valley State Prison, to obtain his medical records.

(Id.) Plaintiff has attached to his motion a subpoena form issued from the Southern District

of California.1

 

After a review of Plaintiff’s motion, it appears that Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a

Case 3:09-cv-00892-LAB-BGS Document 73 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 3
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

15 C.C.R. §3370(c) provides that an inmate “may review their own case records file and unit

health records.” Plaintiff states that he has attempted to review his health records by requesting to

review them through the prison procedures, but was told that the “records could not be found.” 

3

“Unit health records means a patient’s health record that includes all records of care and

treatment rendered to an inmate-patient.” 15 C.C.R. §3370(a). 

4

Plaintiff’s health record should be at Pleasant Valley State Prison, as Title 15 of the California

Code of Regulations, section 3355(b) requires that, “[t]he health record of each new arrival shall be

reviewed to determine the need for previously prescribed medications or continuing treatment for

unusual or chronic health problems.” 

- 2 - 09cv892-LAB

subpoena out of the wrong district. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2)(C),

“a subpoena must issue . . . for production or inspection, if separate from a subpoena

commanding a person’s attendance, from the court for the district where the production or

inspection is to be made.” Plaintiff identifies the place of inspection on the subpoena form as

Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 72 at 7.) Pleasant Valley State Prison is located in

Coalinga, California. (Id. at 2.) Coalinga is located in Fresno County, California, which is

part of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §84(b). Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to

serve a subpoena upon the custodian of medical records at Pleasant Valley State Prison, he

must request a subpoena from the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 as it appears this Court is not the proper

issuing court.

Although Plaintiff’s motion seeks a subpoena to obtain the medical records from a nonparty, Plaintiff indicates that he has requested these documents from Defendants, who have

objected to Plaintiff’s request by stating that Plaintiff can obtain these records “through the

institution.”2

 (Doc. No. 72 at 3.) Plaintiff is seeking records that are likely to be in the

possession, custody and/or control of Defendants, as he seeks his Pleasant Valley State Prison

unit health record3

 (Volumes I and II) in this §1983 action based upon inadequate medical care.

As the Eastern District of California has stated, “it is highly unlikely that Defendants do not

have possession, custody, or control of these documents, assuming that the documents exist

somewhere within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”4

 Carter v.

Dawson, 2010 WL 1796798 *2 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2010). “A party may be ordered to produce

a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the

Case 3:09-cv-00892-LAB-BGS Document 73 Filed 10/01/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - 09cv892-LAB

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D.Cal.1995) (citing Buckley v. Vidal, 50 F.R.D. 271, 274

(S.D.N.Y.1970)). 

Although the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is not

a party to this action, Defendants Paulette Finander and K. Ball, who are employed by CDCR

as Chief Medical Officers, “can generally obtain documents such as the ones at issue here by

simply requesting them from CDCR.” Carter, 2010 WL 1796798 *2; see also Johnson v.

Vord, 2008 WL 3892106 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2008) (requesting defense counsel contact the

prison litigation office to facilitate a review of Plaintiff’s medical file for him). As such,

Defendants Finander and Ball, as employees of CDCR, are to respond to Plaintiff’s request for

a subpoena on or before October 15, 2010. Defendants shall set forth facts that persuasively

demonstrate why they do not have access to these documents. If Defendants do have access,

Defendants shall address any reasons why they object to supplying Plaintiff with the

documents in response to his request or why they object to facilitating a review of the records

for Plaintiff, as resolving this matter informally would avoid unnecessary expenditure of

resources. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2010

 

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00892-LAB-BGS Document 73 Filed 10/01/10 Page 3 of 3