Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-25/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SERVICE 

OF SUBPOENA

(ECF No. 129.)

I. BACKGROUND

Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on December 26, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with 

the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendants 

Lieutenant C. Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos, on Plaintiff’s claim for 

retaliation. (ECF No. 16.) The events in the complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State 

Prison (KVSP) when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This case is in the discovery phase. 

On June 27, 2016, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal 

(Marshal) to serve two subpoenas on behalf of Plaintiff upon Christian Pfeiffer, Warden of 

KVSP, within seven days. (ECF No. 113.) The “first subpoena” commanded Warden Pfeiffer 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 170 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

to “[p]roduce any and all records, reports, and recorded interviews of internal investigations 

conducted by the CDCR concerning allegations that Defendant E. Castellanos and/or 

Defendant Constance Waddle had, or attempted to have, an inmate assaulted by other inmates.” 

(Attachment 1 to ECF No. 113.) The “second subpoena” commanded Warden Pfeiffer to 

“Produce any and all records, reports, and recorded interviews of investigations conducted by 

the CDCR concerning Plaintiff’s allegations of staff misconduct of Correctional Officers 

Patrick Gallagher and Ramon R. Romero with respect to the June 8, 2010, assault on Plaintiff.” 

(Attachment 2 to ECF No. 113.)

Later, it came to the Court’s attention that the “first subpoena” had not been included 

when the service documents were forwarded to the Marshal on June 27, 2016. (ECF No. 126 at 

1:25-27.) The Court then issued an order on July 29, 2016, directing the Marshal to serve the 

“first subpoena” upon Warden Pfeiffer within seven days. (ECF No. 126.) 

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to serve the “second 

subpoena” upon Warden Christian Pfeiffer. (ECF No. 129.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff raises concerns that only one of the two subpoenas issued by the Court was 

served, because only one subpoena was attached to the Court’s order of July 29, 2016. Plaintiff 

requests the Court to serve the “second subpoena” upon Warden Christian Pfeiffer. (ECF No. 

129 at 1.) 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion is moot because the Court issued the “first subpoena” and the “second 

subpoena” and they were both served, as shown by the Court’s record. 

On August 30, 2016, the Secretary of the CDCR and the custodian of records at KVSP 

filed a motion to quash two subpoenas issued in this case. (ECF No. 137.) In the motion, 

CDCR acknowledges receiving two subpoenas and clearly identifies them as the same “first 

subpoena” and “second subpoena” which were forwarded to the Marshal on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for service of the “second subpoena” is moot.

IV. CONCLUSION 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 170 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for service 

of the “second subpoena,” filed on August 11, 2016, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 170 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 3