Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00955/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00955-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIKE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00955-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER 

AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO MODIFY 

SUBPOENA

(Docs. 17, 18)

21-DAY DEADLINE

On February 3, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it 

states cognizable claims under the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Dike but not the 

remaining defendants. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff filed a notice that he “desires to proceed only on the 

claims found cognizable ... against Defendant Dike and the Doe Defendant and to dismiss Phi, 

Powers, an[d] Price as Defendants.” (Doc. 7.) Accordingly, the Court issued findings and 

recommendations to dismiss Defendants Phi, Powers, and Price (Doc. 8) and issued an order 

directing service on Defendant Dike (Doc. 11). Defendant filed on an answer to Plaintiff’s 

complaint on April 13, 2020. (Doc. 12.)

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s answer. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff 

restates his cause of action against Defendant Dike and “requests that the Court find cause for the 

Complaint to be granted and move forward.” (Id.) If by this, Plaintiff requests that the Court 

Case 1:19-cv-00955-AWI-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/24/20 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

allow this case to proceed, the Court has already done so. As stated above, the Court found that 

Plaintiff states cognizable claims against Defendant (Doc. 6), and it issued a discovery and 

scheduling order for this case on April 17, 2020 (Doc. 14). Therefore, the Court DISREGARDS 

Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 17).

Plaintiff has also filed a document titled, “Reply to Notice of Issuance of Subpoena to 

UCR Health.” (Doc. 18.) In the filing, Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s subpoena of documents not 

related to his physical health or the allegations raised in his complaint. (Id.) Thus, the Court 

construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion to modify the subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45(d)(3).

Plaintiff, however, did not include a copy of the subpoena to which he objects. Therefore, 

the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to submit to the 

Court a copy of the subpoena, including any attachments. Plaintiff shall include a cover sheet 

captioned, “Supplement to Motion to Modify Subpoena.” No later than 21 days after Plaintiff’s 

supplement has been filed, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the subpoena. Plaintiff may file a reply, if any, no 

later than 7 days after Defendant’s opposition has been filed. See Local Rule 230(l).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00955-AWI-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 2