Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145-8/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

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

JESSE J. MONTIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv02145 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES 

TECUM

(Document 40)

Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s August 30, 2013, First Amended Complaint for deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, 

Wilson, Das and Wynn.

Defendants Taher-Pour and Wilson filed their answer on June 24, 2013. The remaining 

three Defendants have not yet been served.

On June 25, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Defendants 

moved for reconsideration of the order, which was denied on August 6, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 41 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 3
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

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff 

states only that third-party Felix Igbinosa has “particular documents” in his possession that are 

relevant to Plaintiff’s case.

This case is currently in the discovery phase and the deadline for the completion of all 

discovery is set for November 22, 2013. 

Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena 

commanding the production of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible 

things from a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of the subpoena by the United States 

Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if 

the documents or items sought from the nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not 

obtainable from Defendants through a request for the production of documents, electronically 

stored information, and/or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Defendants object to Plaintiff’s 

discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court rules that the 

documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things are discoverable but 

Defendants do not have care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a)(1). Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents or items are 

not discoverable, the inquiry ends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

In this instance, Plaintiff has not identified the nature of the documents he seeks, nor has 

he demonstrated that he sought the documents from Defendants through a request for the 

production of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things. If he has 

done so, he has not filed a motion to compel those documents.

1

 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on September 6, 2013, after not receiving any responses to his written discovery. 

In their opposition, Defendants indicated that they had served the discovery at issue a day prior to the response date. 

It appeared that Plaintiff had not received the responses when he filed the motion to compel, and the Court therefore 

denied the motion. Plaintiff has not filed any further motions to compel.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 41 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 3
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

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is HEREBY 

DENIED as premature, without prejudice to renewal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Si gnat ur e- END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 41 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 3