Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06353/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06353-6/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

1The Court notes that according to the letter attached to Plaintiff’s Motion, he was seeking, in particular, a

copy of a dentist appointment from his central file. However, the allegations in the Amended Complaint do not

concern a dental issue of any kind. In fact, the Summary of the Complaint regarding the medical issue concern’s

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning his hypertension and the medication prescribed. Plaintiff is forewarned that he may

not use the filing of this action or discovery as a fishing tool to gain information to support other potential claims for

relief. Thus, discovery will be limited to issues relevant to the issues on which this case is proceeding. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDEN GRAHAM ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6353 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUBPOENA (Doc 37.) 

 Linden Graham (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2006, Plaintiff

moved the Court for a subpoena so that he might obtain copies from his Central prison file. 

Plaintiff states that he needs certain copies in order to present his case.1 However, according to

Case 1:03-cv-06353-AWI-GSA Document 38 Filed 05/25/06 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

the Court docket, Defendants were only recently served with a copy of the Complaint and no

Answer has yet been filed and is not due until June 1, 2006. Until such time as an Answer is

filed, the Court will not issue a Discovery/Scheduling Order opening discovery and setting forth

the deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas is

premature. Further, it is possible that Plaintiff may be able to obtain the documents directly

without the assistance of the Court and without having to resort to the mechanism of discovery. 

In any event, because discovery has not yet been opened, Plaintiff has not been given the

opportunity to attempt to gain these documents without court assistance. Accordingly, the

request for a subpoena is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06353-AWI-GSA Document 38 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2