Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

05cv0513

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, Director CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv0513-L(NLS)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN

QUESTIONS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this prisoner civil rights action, filed an objection pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to the Magistrate Judge’s July 11, 2007 Order Denying

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Depositions by Written Questions (“Order”). Defendants filed a

response. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. 

Discovery motions, such as the motions at issue here, are considered non-dispositive. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Civ. Loc. R. 72.1(b). A district court judge may reconsider a magistrate

judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate’s

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

72(a). 

Plaintiff sought to depose several third-party witnesses and Defendants by written

questions. None of the deponents complied with Plaintiff’s deposition notices. Plaintiff moved

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 116 Filed 08/17/07 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

1 Plaintiff suggests that if the court were to overrule his objections, it should revisit

the prior orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel. Appointment of counsel would

not assure Plaintiff the desired outcome, i.e. that “the court assume cost of necessary deposition

officer fees and witness fees” (Objection at 4). Furthermore, over the past three years, Plaintiff

has demonstrated he is capable of adequately articulating the factual basis for his claims and

advancing his legal arguments. 

2 05cv0513

to compel depositions. His motions to compel were denied because the subpoenas to the thirdparty witnesses were not properly served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1). 

In addition, Plaintiff did not tender witness fees and mileage when the subpoenas were served, as

required by Rule 45(b)(1). Last, the deposition notices did not comply with Rule 31, which

required Plaintiff to designate a deposition officer and notify the deponent of the agreed-upon

time, place and manner of deposition. 

Plaintiff objects to the Order because he is indigent, and therefore cannot pay for witness

fees, mileage and a deposition officer. “Expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent

litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . ..” United States v. MacCollom, 426

U.S. 317, 321 (1976). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status

entitles him to a waiver of the filing fee and free service of process by United States Marshals,

however, it does not entitle him to waiver of witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989).1

Even if Plaintiff had paid the witness fees, mileage and a deposition officer, his

deposition notices were defective because they did not designate an agreed upon date and time,

and with respect to third party witnesses, they were not properly served. Plaintiff does not object

to Magistrate Judge’s findings that the notices were defective in these respects.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 116 Filed 08/17/07 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 05cv0513

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 116 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 3