Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-2/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

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC)

ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND 

SETTING DEADLINES

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

PLAINTIFF ONE COPY OF FORM AO 88B 

AND ONE COPY OF FORM USM-285

Cesario Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 30, 2022, the Court issued a screening order. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty 

days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not 

want to file an amended complaint and instead wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he 

wants to stand on his complaint.” (ECF No. 6, p. 11). The Court noted that if Plaintiff “files a 

statement that he wants to go forward only on [his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Doe ISU Officers 1-3], the Court will authorize the issuance of a subpoena so that 

Plaintiff can seek document(s) that identify the Doe Defendant(s).” (Id. at 2). On October 13, 

2022, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he wants to proceed with his Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF No. 7).

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 10/17/22 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

Accordingly, the Court will authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. When 

completing the subpoena form, Plaintiff should only request documents that may assist him in 

identifying Doe ISU Officers 1-3.

1

 He should also identify with specificity the documents he is 

seeking and the person or entity he is seeking the documents from. Once Plaintiff has completed 

and returned form AO 88B and form USM-285, the Court will direct the United States Marshals 

Service to serve the subpoena.2 The Court notes that it may limit Plaintiff’s request for 

production of documents.

Plaintiff has 120 days from the date of service of this order to file a motion to substitute 

named defendants in place of Doe ISU Officers 1-3. Failure to file a motion to substitute by this 

deadline may result in the dismissal of the unidentified defendants.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff one copy of form AO 88B and one

copy of form USM-285; 

2. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to complete and return 

form AO 88B and form USM-285; and

3. Plaintiff has 120 days from the date of service of this order to file a motion to 

substitute named defendants in place of Doe ISU Officers 1-3. Failure to file a 

motion to substitute by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the unidentified 

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court is not opening discovery generally. It is only allowing Plaintiff to subpoena documents that 

may allow him to identify Doe ISU Officers 1-3. 

2

If after being served with the subpoena, the responding person or entity fails to respond or objects to 

providing documents, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel. The motion must be filed with the Court and served on 

the responding person or entity.

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 2