Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039-2/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

JEREMIAH D. VICKERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. MALDONADO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02039 SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AS MOOT 

(ECF NO. 28)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE 

FOR FILING AMENDED PLEADINGS.

AMENDED PLEADINGS DEADLINE

SEPTEMBER 5, 2016.

(ECF No. 32)

Plaintiff Jeremiah Vickers is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion titled as “motion for objection to production of 

records and Defendants’ counsel’s noncompliance with rules.” (ECF No. 28.) In his motion, 

Plaintiff seeks to quash two subpoenas he received on March 30, 2016. The Court therefore 

construes this as a motion to quash subpoenas. On May 19, 2016, Defendants filed opposition to 

the motion. (ECF No. 31.) On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file 

an amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) 

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 34 Filed 07/27/16 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

I.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

Plaintiff seeks an order quashing two subpoenas that he received on March 30, 2016. 

One of the subpoenas was addressed to Plaintiff in Delano, California, where Plaintiff was 

previously housed. The other subpoena was sent to Plaintiff from the company that received the 

subpoena. Plaintiff seeks an order quashing the subpoenas based on Counsel’s failure to serve 

the subpoenas on Plaintiff at his address of record. Defendants oppose the motion. 

Defendants indicate that it appears that both subpoenas at issue inadvertently and 

mistakenly reflect Plaintiff’s previous address at Delano, rather than his current address at

Lancaster. Defendants’ opposition is supported by the declaration of counsel. Counsel declares 

that on May 16, 2016, she received a copy of the motion that is now before the Court. On the 

same date, counsel received Plaintiff’s original signature, dated May 9, 2016, expressly 

authorizing Corizon Health and Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency to release his 

medical and mental health records to her office. On May 17, 2016, counsel’s office instructed 

Complex Legal Services to withdraw both subpoenas due to her office’s inadvertent mistake 

referencing Plaintiff’s previous address. On the same date, counsel drafted a letter to Plaintiff 

acknowledging the error and informing him that as a result both subpoenas have been 

withdrawn. (Terrible Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.) The motion to quash subpoenas is therefore moot.

II.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff seeks a sixty day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) 

Plaintiff indicates that due to delays in providing access to the law library at his institution, he 

has been unable to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and obtain the necessary 

materials in order to file his amended complaint by the August 5, 2016, deadline to filing to 

amend pleadings set forth in the February 5, 2016, discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 

21.) Plaintiff is advised that he may not file an amended complaint without leave of Court, and 

without the opportunity for Defendants to oppose any motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), because Defendants have filed 

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 34 Filed 07/27/16 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

a responsive pleading, Plaintiff may only amend his complaint with leave of Court. Therefore, 

the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to extend the deadline to file amended

pleadings, and grant Plaintiff an extension of time to September 5, 2016, in which to file a 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that any such motion must be 

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoenas is DENIED as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, construed as a motion to extend the deadline 

for filing amended pleadings is GRANTED. The deadline for filing amended 

pleadings, including a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, is extended to 

September 5, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 34 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 3