Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00627/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00627-1/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

JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 627 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUBPOENAS (Doc. 6.) 

 John E. West (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 23, 2006. 

On July 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Request for Subpoena” in which

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a subpoena directing that inmate Canup be brought for oral

hearing in this Court. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:06-cv-00627-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/26/06 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

In this case, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s case to determine whether it states a

cognizable claim for relief. Until such time as that determination is made, the Court will not

direct that the Complaint be served on Defendant which will cause the Defendant to file an

Answer to the Complaint. The Court will then issue an Order setting forth various deadlines for

the filing of certain type of Motions. Only if the Complaint survives the filing and subsequent

disposition of any motions filed by Defendant will the Court then set the matter for trial. 

Plaintiff’s request that the Court order that Plaintiff’s witness be brought before it is premature. 

Plaintiff will be informed by Court Order when the appropriate time to make his list of witnesses

known to the Court and the filing of a Motion for Subpoena is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, the Request for Subpoena is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00627-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2