Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-54/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM 

ADVENTIST HEALTH BAKERSFIELD TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIRDPARTY SUBPOENA

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER (AND 

OTHERS) TO ADVENTIST HEALTH 

BAKERSFIELD

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 

leave to issue a third-party subpoena directed to Adventist Health Bakersfield, and authorized 

service of Plaintiff’s subpoena by the United States Marshals Service. (ECF Nos. 229, 246). 

Because the proof of service filed by the United States Marshals Service indicated to the Court 

that Adventist Health Bakersfield did not respond to the subpoena based on a misunderstanding 

that the subpoena was directed to an individual physician rather than the hospital itself, the Court 

issued a further order granting Adventist Health Bakersfield additional time to respond to 

Plaintiff’s subpoena:

Adventist Health Bakersfield has until May 30, 2024 to respond to this order by 

either providing documents responsive to Plaintiff’s April 26, 2024 subpoena as 

further clarified by the Court’s order of that date, or by explaining why it believes 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 274 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 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

2

it does not need to do so.

(ECF No. 259 at 2). The Court also granted Plaintiff permission to file a motion to compel 

after June 2, 2024. The Court directed the Clerk’s office to serve the order, along with the 

Court’s prior orders, to the individual and addresses listed on the business card attached to 

the proof of service filed by the United States Marshals Service.1(Id. at 3). 

On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Adventist Health Bakersfield’s 

response to the third-party subpoena. (ECF No. 273). Plaintiff also moves for an order requiring 

Adventist Health Bakersfield to pay the costs of serving the subpoena as sanctions. (Id.)

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Adventist Health Bakersfield shall file a response or opposition to Plaintiff's 

motion to compel and request for sanctions within twenty-one (21) days of this order. Any 

reply shall be filed within seven (7) days of service of any response or opposition. 

2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of (1) this order, (2) the 

Court’s May 14, 2024 order (ECF No. 259), (3) the Court’s April 26, 2024 order (ECF 

No. 246), (4) the Court’s March 14, 2024 order (ECF No. 229), and (5) a copy of 

Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 273) to Adventist Health Bakersfield as follows:

a. Christina Maese, Director Physician Services, 2615 Chester Avenue, P.O. 

Box 2615, Bakersfield, CA 93303.

b. Adventist Health Bakersfield, ATTN: Legal Department, 2615 Chester 

Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

1 The mail sent to one of these addresses, 115 West E Street, P.O. Box 1900, Tehachapi, CA 93581-1900, 

was returned as undeliverable. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 274 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 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

3

3. Adventist Health Bakersfield is advised that failure to follow this order may result 

in Adventist Health Bakersfield being held in contempt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) (“The 

court for the district where compliance is required — and also, after a motion is 

transferred, the issuing court — may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, 

fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 274 Filed 06/13/24 Page 3 of 3