Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUBPOENAS (ECF No. 79) AND MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 78) 

AS MOOT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants Walker, Davis,1

Prokop, Spralding, and Fellows on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas, filed August 19, 2015 (ECF No. 

79) and his motion for reconsideration, filed August 26, 2015. (ECF No. 78).

In these motions, Plaintiff requests the court (1) subpoena unidentified individuals

to testify at an evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 4, 2015, and 2) to 

reconsider the scope of the issues to be considered at the hearing. Aside from Plaintiff’s 

failure to specify the individuals to be subpoenaed, Plaintiff filed his motion for 

subpoenas after the deadline to notify Defendants of the witnesses he planned to call at 

the hearing had passed. Neither the motion for subpoenas nor the motion for 

reconsideration was filed far enough in advance of the hearing to allow Defendants time 

to respond.

On September 4, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of 

 

1

Formerly Defendant D. McGaha.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 83 Filed 09/21/15 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

exhaustion. (ECF No. 80.) Subpoenas did not issue for any witnesses for Plaintiff, and

evidence was taken. Accordingly, the Court finds both the motion for subpoenas and the 

motion for reconsideration to be moot.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas (ECF No. 79) is DENIED as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 78) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 83 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 2