Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO (PC)

ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roberto Johnson is a former county jail and current state prison inmate

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant 

Frye. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 2023, this Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate and

Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return. (Doc. 16.) 

Plaintiff submitted service documents on January 10, 2024. (Doc. 21.) On that same date, 

the United States Marshals Service was directed to serve the summons and complaint on 

Defendant Frye. (Doc. 22.) Specifically, the order identified Defendant Frye as follows: “Kern 

County Deputy Sheriff Frye, Badge No. 1572.” (Id., emphasis in original.) 

On March 26, 2024, the United States Marshals Service filed its USM-285 form indicating 

service on Defendant Frye could not be effected. (Doc. 24.) The United States Marshals Service 

was advised by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office that “Deputy Frye has not worke[d] there since 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 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

2

2021.”1(Id.) 

On March 29, 2024, this Court issued its Order To Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Defendant 

Frye Should Not Be Dismissed From This Action For Failure To Provide Sufficient Information 

To Effect Service. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the OSC within 30 days. (Id. at 

3.) On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a written response to the OSC. (Doc. 26.) 

On April 16, 2024, the Court issued its Order Discharging Order to Show Cause and 

Order Extending Deadline Within Which Plaintiff May Submit Additional Identifying 

Information Regarding Defendant Frye. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff was to provide any additional 

information within 21 days. (Id. at 4.) On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled 

“Plaintiff’s Reply to Additional Identifying Information Regarding Defendant Frye.” (Doc. 28.) 

This Court issued its Order Directing United States Marshall to Attempt Re-Service of 

Defendant Frye on May 1, 2024. (Doc. 29.) On May 16, 2024, the United States Marshals Service 

filed its USM-285 form indicating the attempted re-service of Defendant Frye was unsuccessful. 

(Doc. 30.) The Kern County Sheriff’s Office Personnel Department advised the United States 

Marshals Service that it was unable to divulge information from its personnel files and was 

unable to provide a forwarding address for Defendant Frye. (Id.) 

Defendant Frye is the sole remaining defendant in this action. If service of process cannot 

be effected as to Defendant Frye, the Court will be required to dismiss Frye, and to close this 

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Before issuing findings and recommendations to dismiss 

Defendant Frye for a failure to effect service of process, the Court will allow Plaintiff an 

opportunity to file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena directed to the Kern County Sheriff’s 

Office regarding a service address or forwarding address for Defendant Frye, should Plaintiff

choose to do so in accordance with the information provided below. 

//

//

1 The events leading up to Plaintiff allegedly contracting COVID-19 on February 13, 2021, give rise to his 

claims against Defendant Frye in this action. (See Doc. 10.)

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 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

3

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 452governs subpoenas, which are the mechanism for 

obtaining discovery and testimony from non-parties. A subpoena may be issued by the Court, the 

Clerk of Court, or an attorney as an officer of the Court for witnesses and documents found 

within its jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), (3).

Plaintiff is advised that the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by 

an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena 

duces tecum is required under Rule 45(b), “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its 

resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett, No. 

1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to 

the non-party in providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. A motion for 

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear identification of the information 

or documents sought and a showing that the information or records are obtainable only through 

the identified third party. See, e.g., Kindred v. Cabrera, No. 1:19-cv-00901-JLT-EPG PC, 2022 

WL 1017938, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022); Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO PC, 

2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWISMS PC, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in 

order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 

1991). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this Court's vigilance” in considering these 

factors. Id. 

Plaintiff is further advised that the Court is sensitive to safety and security concerns that 

may arise in providing an inmate or detainee with documents or electronically stored information 

2 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits issuance of subpoenas to obtain discovery from 

non-parties equivalent to discovery from parties under Rule 34. See Adv. Comm. Note to 1991 

Amendment to FRCP 45. Rule 34 governs discovery of designated documents, electronically stored 

information, and designated tangible things subject to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b). Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 WL 3003718, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 

2009) (citing Fahey v. United States, 18 F. R. D. 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)).

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 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

4

containing the address of a staff member. Therefore, should the Court issue a subpoena for such 

information in the future, the Court will permit the Kern County Sheriff’s Office to provide any 

forwarding address or service address for Defendant Frye (or documents and/or electronically 

stored information) directly to the Court in camera via email, rather than providing that 

information to Plaintiff. Thereafter, upon receipt of such information, the Court would again 

direct the United States Marshal’s Service to serve Defendant Frye and will also direct the United 

States Marshal to keep the address confidential. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order 

within which to file a motion for issuance of a subpoena related to a forwarding address or service 

address for Defendant Frye. 

Plaintiff is warned that a failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to comply with a court order and 

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 4