Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836-12/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

SAAHDI COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

Doc. 73

I. Procedural History

On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On May 6, 2009, the Court found a

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical need as to Plaintiff’s

vision problems and falling from his top bunk. Doc. 18. On September 3, 2010, the Court issued a

discovery and scheduling order, setting a discovery deadline of May 3, 2011. Doc. 55. On May 23,

2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of the discovery deadline, setting a revised

discovery deadline of August 1, 2011. Doc. 65. On August 4, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’

motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discoveryrequests, setting a deadline of August

29, 2011. Doc. 67. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for extension of the

dispositive motion deadline, setting a revised dispositive motion deadline of November 7, 2011.

Doc. 69. On October 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 70. On

November 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena for production of documents from a

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 84 Filed 04/13/12 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

nonparty, i.e., custodian of consumer employee records. Doc. 73. On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed

an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, memorandum of points and authorities,

statement of undisputed facts, exhibits, and response to Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts.

Docs. 75-79. On March 26, 2012, Defendants filed reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for

summary judgment. Doc. 82. This matter is deem submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. Analysis

First, subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena

commanding the production of documents or tangible things from a nonparty, and to service of the

subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 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. If Defendants object

to Plaintiff’s discovery request, 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 care, custody, and

control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of a nonparty. Alternatively, if the Court rules

that the documents are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. The Court will not issue a subpoena for

a nonparty individual without Plaintiff first following the procedure outlined above.

Second, the Court extended the discovery deadline to August 1, 2011. Doc. 65. In

Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline to November 7, 2011, Defendants

stated that discoveryhad not been completed. Doc. 68. Plaintiff did not move to extend the discovery

deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena, filed after the discovery deadline, is untimely.

Despite his pro se status, Plaintiff is not entitled to any latitude for the untimeliness. See Fingerhut

Corp. v. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856–57 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that pro se

representation does not excuse a litigant from complying with court orders); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951

F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining that although courts should liberally construe pro se

plaintiffs’ legal arguments and strictly construe their compliance with procedural requirements); see

also Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008–09 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that pro se plaintiffs must

follow the rules of the court). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena is untimely. Fed. R. Civ.

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 84 Filed 04/13/12 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

P. 16(b). 

Third, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how the documents are relevant to the allegations in

his complaint. Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b). In Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena, Plaintiff requests weekly tracking reports to

identify overdue appeals. Since Plaintiff’s claim is Eighth Amendment claim deliberate indifference

to medical need as to Plaintiff’s vision problems and falling from his top bunk, overdue appeals are

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim.

III. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he followed the proper procedure to

request a subpoena for a nonparty individual; that Plaintiff’s discovery motion is untimely; and that

Plaintiff’s discovery request is not relevant to his pending claim. Based on the foregoing analysis,

Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2012 

7j8cce UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 84 Filed 04/13/12 Page 3 of 3