Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00358/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00358-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAL A. JENKINS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0358 LKK KJM P

vs.

BARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On

August 20, 2007, he asked the clerk’s office to provide him with a form for a subpoena duces

tecum.

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (a)(2)(C), a subpoena may direct a non-party to an

action to produce documents or other tangible objects for inspection. However, a party’s ability

to use a subpoena duces tecum is circumscribed by the relevance standards of Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1), Transcor, Inc. v. Furney Charters, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 588, 591 (D. Kan. 2003), and by the

court’s duty to ensure that a subpoena does not impose undue burden or expense on a person

subject to that subpoena. United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364

(9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of compliance with subpoena to non-party); Cantaline v.

Raymark Industries, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 447, 450 (S.D. Fla. 1984) (same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(1). 

Case 2:05-cv-00358-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 10/09/07 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

2

One court has found it appropriate to require an indigent plaintiff to “demonstrate that he has

made provision for the costs of such discovery” before it would direct the Clerk to provide him

with the forms for subpoenas duces tecum. Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa.

1991). 

Because plaintiff has not explained what he seeks to obtain through the use of the

subpoena duces tecum, the court cannot evaluate whether the requests would be relevant or

burdensome.

 On September 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, suggesting that the

defendants and “their law enforcement associates” will “utilize this civil rights litigation as a

forum for continued oppression . . . .” The basis for the motion is difficult to discern, based as it

is on some species of numerology known only to plaintiff. It provides no basis for the

imposition of sanctions.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2007 request for a subpoena duces tecum is denied

without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 21, 2007 motion for the imposition of sanctions is

denied.

DATED: October 9, 2007. 

2/jenk0358.mot

Case 2:05-cv-00358-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2