Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TION ALONZO HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-05434-TEH 

ORDER RE: SUBPOENAS OF NONPARTY WITNESSES

On the first day of trial, it was brought to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff may 

have served subpoenas for certain non-party witnesses’ attendance at trial on the San 

Francisco Mayor’s Office, even though the witnesses are officers of the San Francisco 

Sheriff’s Department.

“Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(b)(1). “The longstanding interpretation of Rule 45 has been that personal 

service of subpoenas is required.” 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 2454 (3d ed. 2015); see also Chima v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 23 F. 

App’x 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Smith, 126 F.R.D. 461, 462 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 

Considering the authorities cited above, the Court is not convinced that it has the 

authority to compel the attendance of any improperly served witnesses. Should this issue 

remain unresolved by the parties at the time for any allegedly improperly served witness to 

testify, Plaintiff is instructed to promptly file a motion with citations to authority in support 

of his actions and requested relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/09/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 202 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 1