Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-22/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

 Plaintiff filed requests for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum on September 18, 2006, and September 1

22, 2006. Those requests are addressed in a separate order issued concurrently with this order, and the filing of

those requests does not cure the deficiencies in the motion to compel. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELROY W. BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00342-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL WARDEN SCRIBNER TO

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 60)

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion for a court order compelling Warden A. K. Scribner to respond to plaintiff’s request for the

production of documents. Defendants Castro, Jackson, and Lopez filed an opposition on September

13, 2006, and plaintiff filed a reply on October 2, 2006.

Warden Scribner is not a party to this action. Therefore, the only way for plaintiff to obtain

documentary discovery from Scribner is via the issuance and service of a subpoena duces tecum

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Plaintiff did not request the issuance of a subpoena

and has submitted no evidence that one has been served on Scribner. Absent personal service of 1

a subpoena and a showing of subsequent non-compliance with the subpoena, plaintiff is not entitled

to a court order compelling Scribner to produce any documents. In addition, this type of procedure

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 70 Filed 10/23/06 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

2

can be used all to easily for illegitimate purposes. Plaintiff will be required to provide a declaration

to be filed confidentially for the court’s eyes only justifying his request, should he still wish to make

it.

Plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ opposition as untimely is without merit. Local Rule 72-

304(b), which plaintiff cites to, pertains to objections to Magistrate Judges’ findings and

recommendations, and is inapplicable here. Defendants had twenty-one days within which to file

an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and their opposition was timely. Local Rule 78-230(m).

Regardless, plaintiff bears the burden as the moving party and he is not entitled to the relief he seeks

in his motion, defendants’ opposition notwithstanding. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed August 24, 2006, is HEREBY

DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 70 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2