Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01417/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01417-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK GONZALES,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1417 OWW WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE MOTIONS (DOC 13, 17)

E. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action. Pending before the

Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel subpoena compliance. Plaintiff has served upon

nonparty California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation a subpoena request pertaining

to an inmate. Plaintiff also seeks the enforcement of a subpoena issued to certain law

enforcement officials in Los Angeles County.

Counsel for CDCR Defendants correctly note that a party appearing in pro per can not

issue a subpoena. Further, no discovery order has been entered in this case. Until such time as a

discovery order has been entered, no discovery may be had by any party. 

On June 28, 2007, an order was entered, dismissing the complaint in this action and

granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint. There is therefore no operative pleading in this action. 

Case 1:06-cv-01417-OWW -WMW Document 25 Filed 01/16/08 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

2

On October 1, 2007, a recommendation of dismissal was entered, recommending

dismissal of this action on the ground that Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The Court will therefore grant

Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time in which to file an amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel compliance with his subpoena requests are denied.

2. The October 1, 2007, recommendation of dismissal is vacated.

3. Plaintiff is granted a thirty day extension of time to file an amended complaint in

compliance with the order of June 28, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01417-OWW -WMW Document 25 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2