Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101-8/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. L. DeAZEVEDO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO PC 

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES

TECUM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff TimothyHoward, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 20, 2011. The discovery phase of this

litigation is now open, and on March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed his second motion seeking the issuance

of subpoenas duces tecum. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.

Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiffis entitled to the issuance of subpoenas commanding

the production of documents or tangible things from nonparties, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service

of the subpoenas bythe United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider

granting such a request only if the documents or tangible things sought from the nonparty are not

equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for the

production of documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Once Defendants have objected to

Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents, as is the situation here, a motion to compel is

the next required step. If the Court rules that the documents or tangible things are discoverable but

Defendants do not have possession, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a

subpoena. Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents are not discoverable, the inquiryends. 

1

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 03/08/13 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, filed on

March 4, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 2