Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-31/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT E. STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6331 (NEW) DLB P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (Doc. 453.) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY

OF DEFAULT (Doc. 455, 456.) 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

(Doc. 457.) 

Scott E. Stearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff

filed Motions for Entry of Default on April 30, 2007, and also a Motion for a subpoena duces

tecum and Petition for Writ Ad Testificandum. The Court will resolve each motion in turn. 

A. Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

Plaintiff is requesting said subpoena to obtain photographic evidence regarding his

stabbing on August 4, 1999. Plaintiff indicates that his Motions to Compel were denied and thus,

he is attempting to gain this evidence via a subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

was denied because his discovery requests and motion to compel were filed after the deadlines

set by the court for completion of discovery and filing of ono-dispositive motions. 

A party may seek documents from a third party via the issuance of a subpoena duces

tecum, and is entitled to request a subpoena from the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. However, the

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 459 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 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

2

documents Plaintiff seeks are from the opposing party. Moreover, the time for seeking discovery

has expired. 

Plaintiff has been informed on numerous occasions that all discovery, including motions

to compel to gain certain evidence, must have been filed on or before July 10, 2006. Discovery

began on November 16, 2005, when the Court issued its Second Scheduling Order. The

information regarding deadlines and discovery disputes was included in that Order. The various

motions to compel filed by Plaintiff were denied for a multitude of reasons, including that the

requests concerned issues that were not part of the instant action. Plaintiff’s attempt to re-open

or re-litigate discovery at this time via a Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum is improper as the

deadline for the resolution of discovery expired on July 10, 2006. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED. 

B. Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff has also moved for default judgment against Defendant Flores for having failed

to respond to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed on December 29, 2006. The Court has

reviewed the Court docket and finds that no such motion was filed on December 29, 2006.

In any event, even had such a Motion been filed, the Court declines to enter default. 

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a). Plaintiff is reminded that “[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of

default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance

with Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55(c). 

Here, this action is proceeding to trial on the Eighth Amendment claim against the sole

remaining Defendant, Defendant Flores. According to the Court record, Defendant Flores has

filed a waiver of service (Doc. 51), two Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 69, 136), and two Motions for

Summary Judgment (Docs. 217, 261.) It cannot be said that Defendant Flores has failed to plead

or defend under the rules. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default is DENIED. 

C. Petition for Writ Ad Testificandum

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 459 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ Ad Testificandum on March 30, 2007, requesting that

the Director of the CDCR be compelled to bring sixteen inmates to trial to testify on behalf of

Plaintiff. 

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued a Third Scheduling Order setting the matter for trial

and informing Plaintiff of the procedures required for obtaining the attendance of incarcerated

witnesses. That Order detailed the procedure for witnesses who were willing to testify and for

those who were not willing to testify. This included providing the names of the individuals,

address, prison i.d. number, declarations from each inmate as to their willingness and what they

will testify to. The instant Motion, however, is not in compliance with that Order for obtaining

incarcerated witnesses. It is possible that Plaintiff did not yet have in his possession the Third

Scheduling Order and this is the reason the Motion is not in compliance with that order. Plaintiff

is advised to review the Third Scheduling Order and resubmit his Motion for Attendance of

incarcerated Witnesses in a format that complies with the Court’s Order. The instant Motion,

however, will be DENIED without prejudice. 

D. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED; 

2. The Motion for Entry of Default is DENIED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 459 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3