Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01927/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01927-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW ALCON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRIN BRIGHT,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01927-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel production and delivery of 

documents under subpoena from the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California (“CTFSoledad”). Having considered the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby 

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel but will send him a blank subpoena to obtain his medical 

records.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Matthew Alcon, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant, Dr. Darren Bright, was deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs, thereby violating his Eight Amendment rights.

Plaintiff seeks a copy of his full medical records. He states that, “Plaintiff’s effort to 

acquire relevant documents via established intuitional [sic] procedures, has been met with minimal 

success.” Dkt. No. 35 at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that his “[r]equests for complete documents 

are not being provided. Requests for missing pages results in Plaintiff receiving duplicates of 

documents already received without the missing pages. Inquiries as to whether missing pages are 

omitted by design or due to their unnecessary [sic] go un-answered [sic].” Id. Plaintiff signed and 

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

mailed a subpoena, dated April 15, 2015, for production of documents to the CTF-Soledad

litigation coordinator. See Dkt. No. 31-1. Having received no response, plaintiff brought this

motion to compel production and delivery of documents under subpoena. Dkt. No. 31. Defendant 

opposes the motion on two grounds. First, plaintiff can obtain the records he desires directly from 

the prison through the Operational Procedure of CTF-Soledad. Dkt. 32 at 2. Second, the 

subpoena is invalid because it was not signed by an attorney or a clerk of the Court. Id. at 1-2.

DISCUSSION

I. Existence of an Alternative Method to Obtain the Records from the Prison

Defendant argues that the motion to compel should be denied because plaintiff can obtain 

records through the established procedure at CTF-Soledad. Id. at 2. An inmate can fill out a form 

which grants him access to his medical records. Dkt. No. 32-1 ¶ 2, see Dkt. No. 32-2. After the 

request is made, the Health Information Technician II Supervisor will print out and review the 

documents with the inmate; the inmate may then request copies of desired documents at ten cents 

per page. Dkt. No. 32-1 ¶¶ 3-4. Defendant contends that the motion to compel should be denied 

because plaintiff may obtain his medical records directly from the prison using his procedure. 

Dkt. 32 at 2.

The Court is unpersuaded that the motion should be denied because plaintiff has alternative 

means to access his medical records. “[I]t is generally not a ground for objection that requested 

documents are equally available from the requesting party’s own records.” Bretana v. Int’l 

Collection Corp., No. C07-05934 JF (HRL), 2008 WL 4334710, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008); 

see also St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 514 (N.D. 

Iowa 2000) (noting that courts have unambiguously stated that an objection “based on the ground 

that it seeks information and documents . . . from records which are equally available to the 

propounding parties” is “insufficient to resist a discovery request.”).1 Furthermore, plaintiff 

 

1 Although the Bretana and St. Paul courts were not addressing Rule 45 directly, the Court 

finds their reasoning applicable in this instance because “discovery rules are to be accorded a 

broad and liberal treatment.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947).

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

asserts that he has tried to obtain medical records and other documents through the prison’s 

established procedure described above but has been unsuccessful in obtaining his full medical 

record. Dkt. 35 at 1. (Although plaintiff may use a subpoena instead of following the established 

procedure, the prison may require him to pay reasonable photocopy charges for the documents he 

wants copied).

II. The Subpoena is Invalid

Plaintiff filed a copy of a United States District Court subpoena addressed to the CFTSoledad litigation coordinator, containing the list of items for which he sought production on April 

12, 2015. The subpoena has no clerk’s signature or other marking indicating that it was issued 

from this court. See Dkt. No. 31-1 at 1. Defendant asserts that the subpoena is invalid because it 

was neither properly issued by the court nor by an attorney. Dkt. 35 at 2.

The Court finds that the subpoena form filed by plaintiff is in fact defective, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 45. A subpoena requested by a party may issue from the 

court, signed by a court clerk, or an attorney may issue and sign a subpoena on the court's behalf, 

if the attorney is authorized to practice before the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).2 The Court 

cannot compel an individual or entity to act on an invalid subpoena. Accordingly, plaintiff's 

motion to compel production must be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s 

motion to compel. Dkt. No. 31.

As a pro se litigant, plaintiff needs the Court’s Clerk to issue a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(3). Therefore, the Clerk will send to plaintiff a blank records subpoena form for plaintiff to 

fill out and return to the Court so that the Clerk may issue the subpoena and the Marshal may 

 

2

Plaintiff points to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) that a party personally must sign 

a discovery request if unrepresented. Dkt. 35 at 1. However, a subpoena has its own requirements 

as provided for under Rule 45.

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

serve it on the subpoenaed party.3Plaintiff shall submit the completed subpoena with the Court by 

October 13, 2015, together with a brief letter asking that it be served. The Court will extend the 

filing deadline for plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment to 

November 20, 2015. Defendant’s reply brief shall be filed no later than December 4, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

3

Plaintiff needs to fill in all of the necessary information, but must leave the signature line 

blank so that the Clerk may sign it.

Case 3:14-cv-01927-SI Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 4