Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-6/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

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.L. STEPHENS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 5817 AWI LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUBPOENAS (Doc. 159.) 

Josh Thomas (“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 October 3, 2005, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order and set the matter for a

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and Trial. The Order noted that Plaintiff was to file a

Motion for Incarcerated witnesses within a certain time frame. The Order also informed Plaintiff

of the manner in which to request the attendance of non-incarcerated witnesses who are both

willing to testify and not willing to testify. On October 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Incarcerated Witnesses. 

On October 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Request for Subpoena and

Order compelling witnesses.” (Doc. 159.) In this pleading, Plaintiff merely indicates that he is

requesting “sixteenth subpoena” for a list of witnesses Plaintiff states have actual knowledge of

all or most of the facts in the case. However, Plaintiff does not indicate in any way, shape or

form whether any of these witnesses are incarcerated in which case they should have been named

in the Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses and not in a separate motion; or whether

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 166 Filed 11/17/05 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

they are willing to testify or not willing to testify. 

In the event the witnesses named are willing to testify, Plaintiff fails to provide the

necessary information (and declarations) outlined in the Second Scheduling Order. Similarly, in

the event the individuals are unincarcerated and unwilling to testify, Plaintiff again fails to

provide the necessary information and witness fees. 

To the extent any of the named individuals are incarcerated witnesses, the Court will

determine whether the individuals will be allowed to come and will issue subpoenas sua sponte,

meaning, without motion by Plaintiff. The Court will not simply issue subpoenas simply at

Plaintiff’s request. Certain procedures must be followed and thus, Plaintiff is urged to re-read

the Second Scheduling Order so that he may make his request for witnesses in the appropriate

manner. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Subpoenas is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 166 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2