Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04755/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04755-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE GIURBINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04755-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH SUBPOENA 

DUCES TECUM FORM; AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF: (1) EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION 

NECESSARY TO LOCATE DEFENDANTS

RUFF AND CHAUS, AND (2) EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Thereafter, the Court issued its Order of Service. 

Service has been ineffective on Defendants Mike Ruff and Anthony Chaus, Chiefs at the 

Office of Correctional Safety (“OSC”) of the California Department of Corrections. In an Order 

dated May 9, 2016, Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with the required information 

necessary to locate each of these Defendants. He was also informed that the failure to do so shall 

result in the dismissal of all claims against these Defendants. 

On May 16, 2016, the other served Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to provide the Court with the required 

information necessary to locate Defendants Ruff and Chaus. Having read and considered 

Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request 

for an extension of time is GRANTED. The time in which Plaintiff may provide the Court with 

the required information necessary to locate these Defendants will be extended up to and including 

August 31, 2016. Failure to do so by the new deadline shall result in the dismissal of all 

claims against Defendants Ruff and Chaus. 

Plaintiff has also filed a request for an extension of time in which to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Having read and considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause 

Case 4:15-cv-04755-YGR Document 25 Filed 07/25/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

appearing, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is 

GRANTED. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

will also be extended up to and including August 31, 2016. Defendants shall file a reply brief no 

later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

Finally, Plaintiff moves for a Court order to serve a subpoenas duces tecum on the OCS 

Litigation Coordinator, which constitutes a demand made upon a non-party. Dkt. 22. Plaintiff has 

attached a copy of a completed subpoena form, which the Clerk of the Court has marked as 

“received,” compelling the OCS Litigation Coordinator to provide “records concerning 

Defendants Mike Ruff and Anthony Chaus” and it includes a deadline of “no later than June 22, 

2016.” Dkt. 23. First, the Court cannot compel non-parties, such the OCS Litigation, to provide

Plaintiff with information. However, Plaintiff may compel a person who is not a party to this 

action to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In order to do so, Plaintiff must fill out the subpoena forms provided 

by the Clerk and must ensure that each person is served with the subpoena by a non-party. 

Plaintiff must tender to each person “the fees for one day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by 

law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per day, 

see 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. See 

Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). These requirements do not apply to a request for 

production of documents from one party on any other party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). While 

Plaintiff has completed the subpoena form, he has not articulated with particularity which 

“records” he needs, i.e., the current addresses of these Defendants. Nor has he submitted the 

requisite fee. Accordingly, at this time, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as premature. Dkt. 22. The 

Court will consider ordering the United States Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum on a nonparty if Plaintiff submits to the Court an updated subpoena form (containing a more detailed 

request and a new deadline) and the requisite fee. The form must describe the items to be 

produced with reasonable particularity and designate a reasonable time, place and manner for their 

production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). The Clerk is instructed to send Plaintiff a blank subpoena 

form along with this Order.

Case 4:15-cv-04755-YGR Document 25 Filed 07/25/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 21 and 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

July 25, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-04755-YGR Document 25 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 3