Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325-7/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Gerald Eldridge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JD Schroeder, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01325-PHX-DGC (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are (1) Objection to and Motion to Quash Subpoenas 

(Doc. 41); (2) Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 46); (3) Motion to 

Extend the Time for Service of Defendant JD Schroeder (Doc. 47); and (4) “Letter to the 

Court” (Doc. 39). For the reasons set forth below, the Objection to and Motion to Quash 

Subpoenas will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will deny the Motion for 

an Order Compelling Discovery and the Motion to Extend the Time for Service of 

Defendant JD Schroeder. The “Letter to the Court” is deemed moot. 

Procedural History 

 Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, 

Arizona. He has filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) alleging a violation of his 

civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Schroeder has been terminated from 

the employ of the Arizona Department of Corrections. (Doc. 22). The Attorney General 

has filed under seal Defendant Schroeder’s last known home address (Doc. 26). The U.S. 

Marshals Service (“USMS”) was unable to serve Defendant Schroeder at that address. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 50 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

The home was vacant and had been sold as confirmed by USMS. (Doc. 33). The Court 

authorized the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to permit the Plaintiff to conduct 

limited discovery for purposes of serving Defendant Schroeder (Doc. 37). Plaintiff has 

issued subpoenas to the Arizona Department of Corrections and Governor Ducey seeking 

“All of J.D. Schroeder employment records. Any and all documents that has J.D. 

Schroeder name on the document and has anything to do with J.D. Schroeder in any way 

on or in the form or document or material in any form.” 

Discussion 

 Non-parties Arizona Department of Corrections and the Office of the Arizona 

Governor move to quash the subpoenas duces tecum on the basis of an unreasonable time 

to respond as set forth on the subpoenas (two days) as well as irrelevance, over-breadth, 

and burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) and (d)(3)(A)(i) and (iv). The Attorney General 

has indicated that no additional information regarding Defendant Schroeder’s current 

address is in the possession of the Arizona Department of Corrections or the Governor, 

other than the home address previously provided under seal (Doc. 41 at 2). Specifically, 

the Assistant Attorney General asserts: “Undersigned counsel is informed by the ADC’s 

Central Office that a thorough search was conducted of the terminated employee to locate 

a current address for Defendant Schroeder, but that none could be found. The Governor’s 

Office has no information about the whereabouts of a former ADC employee: such 

information, if any, would be kept by ADC.” (Id.) Plaintiff, therefore, moves to compel 

disclosure of the information sought in the subpoenas duces tecum. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 

(d)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff incorrectly cites the Court to Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., but his intent 

is clear. 

 The purpose of the Court’s Order (Doc. 37) allowing the issuance of the 

subpoenas duces tecum was to “permit the Plaintiff to conduct reasonable discovery 

limited to ascertaining the requisite service information for Defendant Schroeder, 

specifically Defendant Schroeder’s current address.” (Doc. 37 at 2). The Court provided 

Plaintiff with five subpoenas duces tecum and extended time for service of process for an 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 50 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

additional ninety days from September 15, 2015. 

 This case was originally filed on June 13, 2014 (Doc. 1). The Court granted 

Plaintiff’s fourth Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 14). The Court 

thereafter granted Plaintiff three extensions of time within which to serve Defendant 

Schroeder (Docs. 17, 25, 37). The last extension of time will expire on December 14, 

2015, and Defendant Schroeder has not been served. Plaintiff has attempted to secure a 

current address for Defendant Schroeder through the use of the provided subpoenas duces 

tecum. The movant non-party recipients of those subpoenas do not possess the current 

address of Defendant Schroeder. The Court finds that the scope of the documentation 

sought by Plaintiff is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant to the extent that 

the subpoenas duces tecum request information other than Defendant Schroeder’s current 

address. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). Timeliness is not an issue as Plaintiff is willing 

to extend time for the disclosure of the information sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(3)(A)(i). To the extent that the subpoenas duces tecum seek the production of 

documentation reflecting Defendant Schroeder’s current address, the Court finds that 

they are relevant to the proceedings, not unduly burdensome, and not overly broad. 

Beyond the parameters set forth by the Court, however, the subpoenas duces tecum run 

afoul of Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 The Court further finds that the Plaintiff has failed to articulate in his Motion for 

Extension of Time for Service of Defendant JD Schroeder how additional time will 

accomplish service of process. USMS has insufficient information with which to serve 

Defendant Schroeder. Where an in forma pauperis Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he 

has provided USMS sufficient information to effectuate service of process, the action 

may be dismissed. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled 

on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Boudette v. 

Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court has afforded the Plaintiff three 

extensions of time to serve Defendant Schroeder, all to no avail. Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. 

P., states that if a defendant cannot be served within ninety days after a complaint is filed, 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 50 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

the action must be dismissed without prejudice.1

Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Time for Service of 

Defendant JD Schroeder (Doc. 47). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause no later than January 6, 

2016 why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve 

pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion for an Order Compelling 

Discovery (Doc. 46). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part Objection to and Motion to Quash 

Subpoenas (Doc. 41). The subpoena duces tecum to the Governor of Arizona is quashed, 

and the objection to it is sustained. The objection to the subpoena duces tecum served 

upon the Arizona Department of Corrections is sustained in part. However, the Arizona 

Department of Corrections is required to disclose to the Court under seal any document 

reflecting the current location of Defendant J. D. Schroeder for purposes of service of 

process by the USMS. Production of further documents requested is deemed unduly 

burdensome. The additional documents are irrelevant, and the scope of the subpoena 

duces tecum is overly broad. To the extent the subpoena duces tecum seeks records other 

than the current location of Defendant Schroeder, it is quashed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Letter to the Court” (Doc. 39) is deemed 

moot. 

 Dated this 4th day of December, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 At the time the Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., allowed 

Plaintiff 120 days within which to serve Defendant Schroeder. The multiple extensions of time 

to serve the Defendant in this case obviate any need to calculate time to serve.

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 50 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 4