Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00354-9/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CHARLES R. GORTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OFFICER BICK, et. al., )

 )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0354 REC DLB P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY

[DOC 27]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. On March 7, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena of records

from the California Department of Corrections.

The discovery phase of this litigation was opened January 23, 2008. Discovery is

self-executing until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from

the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Interrogatories, requests for admissions,

requests for production of documents, and responses thereto shall not be filed with the court until

there is a proceeding in which the document or proof of service is at issue. Such documents are to be

served on the opposing party, and not with the court. Local Rule 33-250, 36-250. It does not appear

that plaintiff has served written discovery on the defendants requesting the documents identified in

Case 1:05-cv-00354-DLB Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

his motion. 

Plaintiff is entitled to seek documentary evidence from third parties via the issuance of a

subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which would be served by the

United States Marshal given that plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must describe

the documents he is seeking, which plaintiff has done, and plaintiff must specify from whom he is

seeking the documents. Directing the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a

subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. In this instance, the court has concerns that plaintiff has

not yet sought the documents form defendants. Many of the identified documents are in the

possession, custody or control of defendants and therefore may be obtained by plaintiff through

discovery. In addition, many of the documents identified are likely in plaintiff’s medical file and/or

“C” file, which plaintiff may review upon request. If the documents are not in his “C” file or

medical file, it is not clear to the court where they would be and the court will not send the Marshal

on a fishing expedition. Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal accompanied by

an offer of proof concerning plaintiff’s efforts to obtain the documents, the existence of the

documents and the location of the documents. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00354-DLB Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2