Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. TURMEZEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6359 OWW DLB P

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM A NONPARTY

(Doc. 51)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action proceeding on plaintiff’s

claims against defendants Turmezei and Trott for the use of excessive force and violation of equal

protection. On October 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from a non-party and

specifically from Warden W.J. Sullivan. The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a request for

issuance of subpoena duces tecum. Defendants filed an opposition on November 5, 2007.

I. Background

Defendants object to the motion as untimely based on the discovery cut-off of May 15, 2007.

However, plaintiff moved to compel production of many of the documents included in the present

motion prior to the discovery cut-off. Defendants objected to production of the documents advising

that they did not have possession of the requested documents. On September 19, 2007, the Court

issued an order sustaining many of defendants’ objections on those grounds. In response, plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 56 Filed 11/21/07 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

2

now requests that a subpoena be issued to obtain the documents from a third party. Under these

circumstances, plaintiff’s request is timely. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff is entitled to seek documentary evidence from third parties via the issuance of a

subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which would be served by the

United States Marshal given that plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must describe

the documents he is seeking, which plaintiff has done to some extent, and plaintiff must specify from

whom he is seeking the documents. Directing the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources

personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. 

In Request Numbers 1 and 2, plaintiff seeks “115 all RVR’s authored by defendant Turmezei

[and defendant Williams] on any inmate at CCI.” The Court has already ruled on this request and

denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of these documents. As plaintiff was advised, the

request is not limited in time nor is it limited to a specific type of disciplinary report. Further, the

documents requested must be relevant to the subject matter in the pending action. The claims in this

case relate to plaintiff’s allegations that defendants used excessive force when they peppered

sprayed him and that their actions were indicative of an increase in the use of excessive force against

black inmates. Disciplinary reports written by defendants against other inmates at CCI have little

if any relevance to these claims. The same request made to the Warden does not change this result.

In Request Numbers 3 and 4, plaintiff seeks defendants’ “criminal rap sheets.” A written

request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum requires that plaintiff specify exactly which

documents he is seeking. The request must be specific and cannot be a broadly stated request that

amounts to a fishing expedition. Plaintiff’s request for “criminal rap sheets” does not meet these

requirements. It is also unclear why plaintiff believes the Warden would be in possession of

defendants’ “rap sheets.” These requests are also therefore denied. 

In Request Number Five, plaintiff seeks a photo of the cannister used to pepper spray plaintiff

on September 22, 2002. In response to the same request, defendants have advised plaintiff that a

photo does not exist. Serving a subpoena on the Warden making this request would therefore be

futile.

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 56 Filed 11/21/07 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

3

In Request Numbers 6 and 7 plaintiff seeks copies of all settlement agreements and court

judgments entered into by any employee at CCI from 1994-2007 in any state or federal court case

alleging excessive force, or discrimination. The requests are overly broad and plaintiff has failed

to demonstrate the relevancy of the documents or why he believes the Warden would be in

possession of them. 

Request Numbers 8 and 9 seek complaints filed by any CCI employee against defendants

Turmerzei or Williams alleging racial discrimination from 1994 - 2007. This request is overly broad

and once again plaintiff fails to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents. 

In Request Number 10, plaintiff requests documents that describe the qualification, field of

specialty and full name of the physician “that conducted the physical examination of plaintiff on

April 18, 2002.” Plaintiff argues that defendant’s have relied on the doctor’s opinion in their motion

for summary judgment but the attached exhibits are unintelligible. Because defendants have relied

on the doctor’s opinion, the Court believes it would be more efficient for defendants to provide the

information to plaintiff than to serve a subpoena to the Warden. Accordingly, within 10 days

defendants are requested to provide the name and specialty of the doctor referred to in their

Statement of Undisputed Facts, Fact No. 6. See Doc. No. 45. In the alternative, defendants may file

an objection to this request. In the event that defendants are unwilling to provide the information

to plaintiff, the Court will issue the requested subpoena to the Warden. 

 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for discovery from a non-party, filed October 23, 2007

is granted in part as ordered herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 56 Filed 11/21/07 Page 3 of 3