Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COOK, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DELAYED PAYMENT OF 

SERVICE FEES FOR 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

ON NON-PARTY BY U.S. 

MARSHAL’S OFFICE 

[ECF No. 80] 

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

with a civil complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a 

motion for the U.S. Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum on nonparty “D. Paramo,” the Warden of California Department of Corrections 

at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“CDCR-Donovan”) without 

prepayment of costs. (ECF No. 80). Plaintiff explains he has attempted 

to obtain the information informally to no avail. He asserts that the 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 81 Filed 07/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

materials sought are relevant and readily available to the subpoenaed 

party, and includes a list of the documents requested. It appears the 

proposed subpoena is a documents-only subpoena not requiring the 

respondent to submit to a deposition, and therefore not requiring 

witness fees. 

In his motion, Plaintiff relies on Brown v. De Filippis, 125 F.R.D. 

83, 84-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), for the proposition that courts have 

discretion to order service of document subpoenas by the U.S. Marshal 

without prepayment of costs. (ECF No. 80 at 6). In a similar motion 

Plaintiff filed in Case No. 13cv2984-JLS-MDD, Plaintiff cited similar 

case law and explained that judges in other cases he has litigated in the 

Eastern District of California have held that although “[t]he court lacks 

power to waive plaintiff’s obligation to pay the fee for service of the 

subpoena,” § 1915 permits the court to delay payment of the service 

costs until further order of the court. 28 U.S.C. §1915; Tedder v. Odel, 

890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989); Brown, 125 F.R.D. at 84-85 

(13cv2984-JLS-MDD ECF No. 90 at 10-11). Plaintiff is seeking the 

same relief (delayed payment, not waiver) here. 

Good cause appearing, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request 

that the U.S. Marshal’s Office be directed to serve the documents-only 

subpoena on Warden Paramo of CDCR-Donovan without full 

prepayment of costs. 

The U.S. Marshal’s Office is ORDERED to serve the document 

subpoena Plaintiff attached in support of his motion. (ECF No. 80 at 7-

9). The costs shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 81 Filed 07/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). 

The institution having custody of Plaintiff, currently California 

Mens Colony, is ORDERED to collect payments, assessed at 20% of the 

preceding month’s income, in any month in which Plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the costs 

are paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve this Order on any subsequent 

institution if he is transferred before the costs are paid in full. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 81 Filed 07/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3