Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

RONALD JEROME LAWSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

USP ATWATER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00576-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

(ECF No. 32.)

I. BACKGROUND

Ronald Jerome Lawson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 11, 2014. (ECF No. 

1.) 

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of subpoenas. (ECF No. 32.) The 

motion is now before the Court.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff requests the Court to issue subpoenas commanding the appearance of twelve 

witnesses “for testimony, for the court to analize (sic) a connection leading to my allegation of 

the Eighth Amendment Violation/Failure to Protect, including all available documents, reports, 

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 35 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

pictures, camera footage, etc. (Regional Office & United States Penitentiary).” (ECF No. 32 at 

1.) 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to obtain evidence 

through discovery, he may not do so at this stage of the proceedings. It is not yet time for 

discovery in this action. The Court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for 

discovery after the complaint has been served and one of the defendants has filed an Answer to 

the complaint. In this case, Plaintiff has lodged a Third Amended Complaint for the Court’s 

review, and none of the defendants have been served. Service of process shall not be initiated 

until the Court has screened the complaint and finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims. 

Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this action.

Moreover, even after discovery is opened, Plaintiff may not subpoena witnesses for the 

Court to examine on his behalf. The parties are expected to conduct discovery, including the 

scheduling of depositions, among themselves, without Court intervention, until such discovery 

is at issue. When this case is ready for discovery, the Court shall issue an order with further 

information about conducting discovery. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

issuance of subpoenas, filed on June 6, 2016, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 35 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2