Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02034/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02034-22/pdf.json

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

---

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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MOON, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO 

OBTAIN A MORE COMPLETE TRUST 

FUND ACCOUNT STATEMENT IF THE 

COURT REQUIRES IT 

(ECF No. 114)

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

action, which has been remanded to state court. (ECF No. 96.) Previously in this case, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on his appeal of that remand. (ECF No. 105.) 

He also filed a certified trust fund account statement in support of his IFP motion. (ECF No. 103.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum to obtain a 

more complete trust fund account statement if the court requires it. (ECF No. 114.) Plaintiff argues 

that Defendants have challenged the authenticity of his certified trust fund account statement, and

therefore he seeks a document subpoena to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety if the 

Court requires more information than was provided in that statement. 

By an order issued on September 23, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP. (ECF No. 115.) The Court considered Plaintiff’s certified trust fund account statement, and 

did not find Defendants’ challenge to its authenticity to be meritorious. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM Document 116 Filed 09/26/16 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

motion to proceed IFP was denied on other grounds. No further information regarding Plaintiff’s 

inmate account is necessary, and thus the motion for a subpoena duces tecum will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for subpoena duces tecum 

to obtain a more complete trust fund account statement if the court requires it, (ECF No. 114), is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM Document 116 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2