Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum, filed 

July 5, 2016. Defendants did not file a response, and the motion has been submitted upon the record 

without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

I.

DISCUSSION

Discovery in this action opened in July 2014, and the parties were given eight months to 

conduct pretrial discovery. (ECF No. 90.) In December 2014, Plaintiff was transferred from the 

California Medical Facility (CMF) to the Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) for psychiatric treatment. 

(ECF Nos. 105, 107.) Plaintiff was retained at ASH for 49 days, from December 5, 2014, to January 

23, 2015. (ECF No. 113, at 2 and n.1.) During this time, Plaintiff was without his legal materials. 

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

[ECF No. 193]

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 198 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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

(Id. at 2.) As a result, the Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline 

and the dispositive motion deadline, each by 60 days. (ECF No. 115.) 

Then, approximately two months later, Plaintiff was transferred from the CMF to ASH a 

second time. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff was again separated from his legal materials for just over 90 

days. The Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline for an additional 

60 days, and the dispositive motion deadline for an extra 50 days. (ECF No. 123.) On September 28, 

2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings but extended the discovery and 

dispositive motion deadlines each by thirty days. (ECF No. 131.) The discovery deadline expired on 

October 28, 2015. (ECF No. 131.) On November 9, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of the denial of his request to stay the proceedings. (ECF No. 135.) On February 29, 

2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to further extend the discovery deadline due to the lack of a 

showing of due diligence and good cause. (ECF No. 165.) 

In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks the issuance of subpoena duces tecum directed to the 

custodian of records at Kern Valley State Prison to obtain a copy of the institutions “heat plan” 

records. Plaintiff’s request is untimely as the discovery phase of this action has been closed for 

several months. The fact that Plaintiff failed to follow and comply with the proper procedure in 

seeking subpoena duces tecum during the discovery phase of this action does not support a basis to reopen the discovery phase of this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoena 

duces tecum is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 198 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2