Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01297-5/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

RICHARD D. HEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA KRUEGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01297 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

(Document 22)

Plaintiff Richard D. Heyer (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 

August 5, 2013, and the action was transferred to this Court on August 13, 2013. 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2013, and it is currently awaiting 

screening.

Also on November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order either 

the Tulare County Superior Court or Defendant Angela Kruger to “furnish page (2) of Plaintiff’s 

originally issued record subpoena served cell front on June 7, 2013.” Mot. 1.

The Court has previously denied a request from Plaintiff to serve discovery. While Plaintiff 

states that the instant motion is “not a discovery motion,” he is incorrect. Plaintiff is essentially 

requesting that this Court either (1) serve a subpoena duces tecum on a third party; or (2) require a 

Defendant to produce a document. This constitutes discovery.

Case 1:13-cv-01297-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/04/13 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

2

Again, discovery has not yet opened in this action. If the Court screens Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint and finds that it states cognizable claims, the Court will issue an order opening 

discovery after Defendants file an answer. In other words, until the Court determines that Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint states a cognizable claim, it will not order the production of documents 

from a party or non-party.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-01297-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 2