Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-15/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

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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF=S 

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, AND 

PLACING PARTIES ON NOTICE 

THAT THE SUBPOENA TO AGENT 

M. DUNLOP, OFFICE OF INTERNAL 

AFFAIRS,_SHALL ISSUE AFTER 

FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

(ECF No. 44.)

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto M. Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew M. 

Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

(ECF No. 11.) The discovery deadline for this case expired on August 8, 2015, and the 

deadline has not been extended. (ECF No. 32.)

 

1 On May 9, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims from this action, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.)

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 51 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for issuance of a subpoena against a non-party

commanding the production of documents. (ECF No. 44.) 

II. REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA

“A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or 

tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or 

sampling of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D). “If the subpoena commands the 

production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection 

of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice 

and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Under 

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 

non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

“Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

Plaintiff seeks copies of “all records, documents, recorded interviews and any data 

available concerning the investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs on this 

matter, Inmate Appeals 602 Log: KVSP 11-00760.” (Doc. 44 at 4:9-13.) Plaintiff provides 

evidence that he submitted Appeal KVSP 11-00760 on June 3, 2011 as a Staff Complaint 

against Sergeant M. Juarez for use of excessive force against Plaintiff in the incident which is 

now the subject of this case. (ECF No. 44, Exhs. B-D.) On or about July 15, 2011, the Appeal 

was partially granted at the Second Level of review and forwarded for investigation to the 

Office of Internal Affairs. (Id. at 2:25-3:1, Exh. C.) Plaintiff sent a letter to Agent M. Dunlop, 

Office of Internal Affairs, dated December 10, 2014, requesting copies of reports related to the 

investigation conducted by Internal Agent M. Dunlop, and Plaintiff received a response but no 

copies were provided. (Id. at 3, Exh. A, B.) 

Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena, to the extent he seeks information about 

the excessive force incident on May 23, 2011, appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Thus, the Court shall grant Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, and is entitled to service of the subpoena by the 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 51 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States Marshal. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(d). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

45(b)(1), this order provides the requisite notice to the parties that the Court will, after fifteen 

days from the date of service of this order, issue the subpoena and direct the United States 

Marshal to effect personal service.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s request for the issuance of a subpoena, filed July 16, 2015, is 

GRANTED; and

2. Pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1), the parties are placed on notice that a subpoena duces 

tecum to Agent M. Dunlop, Office of Internal Affairs, shall be issued after

fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 51 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3