Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357-12/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

LONG WAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

20 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00357 AWI DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

(Document 59)

Plaintiff Long Way (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

action on March 9, 2012, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by 

federal actors. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is therefore not proceeding in forma pauperis. 

On April 22, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena directed to the 

Warden of USP-Atwater and seeking the names of the officers involved in the event at issue in 

Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on August 5, 2013. He was able to identify 

27 employees as Defendants. 

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 01/02/14 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

Also on August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena directed to the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office. Plaintiff sought “the 27 Defendants’ full names 

and current address of facility of employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” 

On August 26, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve his Third Amended Complaint 

within 120 days. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena as premature because 

Plaintiff had not yet attempted service and therefore could not show that he has been unable to 

serve Defendants.

On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for a subpoena directed to the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office.1 Plaintiff again seeks the full names of the 27 

Defendants and their current place of employment with the BOP. For Defendants who are no 

longer employed with the BOP, Plaintiff requests their last known forwarding address.

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

commanding the production of documents from a non-party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. To obtain such 

relief, Plaintiff must file a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that 

identifies with specificity the documents sought and from whom. 

Based on the information received from the prior subpoena to the Warden of USPAtwater, Plaintiff named 27 Defendants. No Defendants were identified by their full names, 

with most identified with a first initial and last name. Some of the Defendants were identified 

only by last name.

The Court issued summons on August 27, 2013, based on the names provided by 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that on September 12, 2013, each Defendant was served with summons 

and a copy of the Third Amended Complaint. 

 

1

Plaintiff states that he filed a prior request on October 31, 2013, and that no order has issued. However, a review 

of the docket indicates that the Court never received such a motion.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 01/02/14 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

As of the date of this order, eight Defendants (P. Scott, R. Gardea, J. Ciufo, K. Cole, C. 

Wolff, R. Ortiz, T. Adam and P. Shahota) have been served. The remaining summonses were 

returned “due to insufficient name or no longer employed at USP-Atwater.” Mot. 2. 

Plaintiff has now attempted service with the information he has been given. Nineteen 

Defendants have not been served, either because the name provided was insufficient, or because 

they no longer work at USP Atwater. Those nineteen Defendants are: W. Gray, Tincher, 

Bautista, B. Herrera, J. E. Garcia, F. Silver, Aquitania, Linsenmeyer, J. M. Sanchez, Aguirre, S. 

Jackson, L. Taitano, Fields, Robinson, Gallegos, Shandor, Paniagua, Watkins and Spencer. 

Plaintiff is entitled to additional identifying information for these 19 Defendants only. 

Identifying information includes full names, place of employment, and last known address where 

the individual is no longer employed with USP-Atwater.

The Court is issuing this subpoena because Plaintiff used the information he was given by 

USP-Atwater to serve Defendants, and then USP-Atwater interestingly returned many summons 

because they could not identify and/or locate the Defendant. If Defendants have another 

suggestion to address the service issues, the Court may reconsider this order. 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, filed December 9, 

2013, is GRANTED; and

2. Pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1), the parties are placed on notice that a subpoena duces 

tecum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office, shall be issued after fifteen 

(15) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 01/02/14 Page 3 of 3