Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, , )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et

al.,) )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-CV-6329-REC-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET TO REFLECT

PLAINTIFF’S CHANGE OF ADDRESS

(DOC. 28) AND TO RETURN SUBPOENAS

TO PLAINTIFF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOC. 30)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SET

FILE OPPOSITION OR NOTICE OF NONOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 31) NO

LATER THAN JANUARY 25, 2006

ORDER DISREGARDING SUBPOENAS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PRO SE

PLAINTIFF RE: PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW 

FOR TRIAL SUBPOENAS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in Centinela State

Prison who is proceeding pro se with an action concerning alleged

civil right violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter

has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. Defendants have

answered the complaint.

/// 

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 5
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

1There is no indication that the discovery motion is connected in any fashion with Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment, filed eight days after the motion to compel was filed.

2

I. Change of Address

Although Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on

October 17, 2005, the docket has not been updated to reflect

Plaintiff’s change of address. The Clerk will be directed to

update the docket.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

discovery.1

Pursuant to the Court’s amended scheduling order of June 1,

2005, the discovery deadline was October 28, 2005; nondispositive motions were due to be filed no later than December

9, 2005.

Initially, the Court notes that some of the discovery sought

by Plaintiff in his motion to compel was sought by Plaintiff

after the discovery deadline had passed. Schwarzer and Tashima

indicate that when a discovery cut-off date is scheduled pursuant

to Rule 16, it generally limits the time to complete discovery,

which means that the discovery must be served sufficiently in

advance of the cut-off date to permit timely response by that

date. California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure before

Trial at p. 11-61, citing Gavenda v. Orleans County, 182 F.R.D.

17, 20 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 

However, more fundamentally, Plaintiff’s motion is without

the discovery deadline, and thus it is untimely. 

Rule 16(b) provides that a schedule shall not be modified

except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 5
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

judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge. 

The diligence of the party seeking the extension is an important

factor. Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F.Supp. 1230, 1233

(E.D. Cal. 1996) (regarding amending a schedule under Rule 16

with respect to amendment of pleadings).

Here, Plaintiff has not requested modification of the

scheduling order, and he has not made a showing of good cause for

modifying the scheduling order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery will be

denied as untimely. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

On December 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiff filed a proof of service by mail of the

motion on Defendant’s counsel.

In the interest of the efficient administration of justice

for the Court and for the parties, and in order to avoid

confusion regarding the application of the local rules in cases

where hearings are not set on such motions, the Court will set a

briefing schedule for the filing of non-opposition to the motion,

opposition, and any reply.

IV. Subpoenas

On December 15, 2005, the Court received from Plaintiff a

stack of subpoenas directed to various persons to appear at the

time set for trial of this case, namely, April 18, 2006.

Because Plaintiff has not followed the appropriate

procedures regarding these subpoenas, they will be returned to

Plaintiff by the Clerk and will be disregarded by the Court.

Plaintiff is informed of the following: 

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Procedures for Obtaining Attendance of Unincarcerated

Witnesses Who Agree to Testify Voluntarily - It is the

responsibility of the party who has secured an unincarcerated

witness’s voluntary attendance to notify the witness of the time

and date of trial. No action need be sought or obtained from the

court.

Procedures for Obtaining Attendance of Unincarcerated

Witnesses Who Refuse to Testify Voluntarily - If a prospective

witness is not incarcerated, and he or she refuses to testify

voluntarily, the witness must be served with a subpoena. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45. In addition, the party seeking the witness’s

presence must tender an appropriate sum of money for the witness. 

Id. In the case of an unincarcerated witness, the appropriate

sum of money is the daily witness fee of $40.00 plus the

witness’s travel expenses. 28 U.S.C. § 1821. 

If plaintiff wishes to obtain the attendance of one or more

unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily,

plaintiff must first notify the court in writing of the name and

location of each unincarcerated witness. The court will

calculate the travel expense for each unincarcerated witness and

notify plaintiff of the amount(s). Plaintiff must then, for each

witness, submit a money order made payable to the witness for the

full amount of the witness’s travel expenses plus the daily

witness fee of $40.00. The subpoena will not be served upon the

unincarcerated witness by the United States Marshal unless the

money order is tendered to the court. Because no statute

authorizes the use of public funds for these expenses in civil

cases, the tendering of witness fees and travel expenses is

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

required even if the party was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

If plaintiff wishes to have the Marshal serve any

unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily,

plaintiff must submit the money orders to the court no later than

forty days before trial. In order to ensure timely submission of

the money orders, plaintiff should notify the court of the names

and locations of his witnesses, in compliance with step one, as

soon as possible. 

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) The Clerk IS DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect

Plaintiff’s change of address as noted in document 28, filed on

October 17, 2005; and

2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, filed on December

19, 2005, IS DENIED as untimely; and 

3) Defendant SHALL FILE opposition or notice of nonopposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment no later

than January 27, 2006; and

4) If Defendant files opposition to the motion for summary

judgment, Plaintiff may file a reply to the opposition no later

than 15 days after the date on which the opposition was filed;

and

5) The Clerk IS DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff the

subpoenas received by the Court on December 15, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 34 Filed 01/13/06 Page 5 of 5