Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00455-22/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

DWAYNE MEREDITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. OVERLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00455-MJS (PC) 

ORDER:

1. REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

TO SUBPOENA UNINCARCERATED 

WITNESS (ECF No. 103)

2. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 106)

AUGUST 21, 2015 DEADLINE FOR 

SUBMISSION OF STATUTORY FEES

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim against Defendants Overley, Benevidez, and Gamboa. (ECF No. 9.)

Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s July 30, 2015 request to subpoena Correctional 

Officer Gaulden, who is unincarcerated and apparently not willing to testify voluntarily

(ECF No. 103); and (2) Plaintiff’s August 5, 2015 request for clarification (ECF No. 106) 

regarding the procedures for obtaining subpoenas.

I. REQUEST TO SUBPOENA UNINCARCERATED WITNESS

The Court’s January 16, 2015 scheduling order advised Plaintiff of the procedures 

for subpoenaing unincarcerated witnesses who are unwilling to testify voluntarily at trial. 

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 112 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 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 2

(ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff was advised to notify the Court in writing of the names and 

location of such witnesses by April 23, 2015. He did not do so, and instead filed his 

request to subpoena Officer Gaulden over three months late. (ECF No. 103.) However, 

given Plaintiff’s pro se status, his stated confusion over procedures, and his previous, 

albeit prematurely-filed, notice of intent to subpoena Officer Gaulden (ECF Nos. 57 and

74), the Court will consider issuing a subpoena for Officer Gaulden if Plaintiff complies 

with appropriate procedures to accomplish same, including submitting, not later than 

August 21, 2015, a money order to cover Gaulden’s travel expenses and witness fees.

Plaintiff lists the location of Officer Gaulden as California State Prison - Corcoran. 

The Court takes judicial notice that the physical location of CSP-Corcoran is 4001 King 

Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212. The round trip mileage between CSP-Corcoran and the 

United States District Court in Fresno, California is 107 miles. The mileage rate is 57.5 

cents per mile. Accordingly, the total mileage fee for Officer Gaulden is $61.53. Officer 

Gaulden is entitled to a $40.00 daily witness fee. Therefore, Plaintiff must submit to the 

Court by August 21, 2015, a money order in the amount of $101.53 made payable to 

Gaulden in order to subpoena him for trial. The Court will keep Plaintiff’s request for the 

attendance of Officer Gaulden under submission pending receipt of the money order.

II. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SUBPOENA PROCEDURES

Plaintiff’s request for clarification (ECF No. 106) states that he is “flummoxed” by 

the procedure for obtaining subpoenas for his witnesses. The Court refers Plaintiff to the 

scheduling order in this case (ECF No. 76) and its description of the general procedures 

for obtaining the attendance of witnesses at trial, as well as the additional specific 

information below. 

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement (ECF No. 86) indicates he wants to call three people 

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 112 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 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 3

besides himself to testify at trial: Paul Sanders, an inmate who is willing to testify 

voluntarily; Howard Johnson, a parolee who is willing to testify voluntarily; and Officer 

Gaulden, a correctional officer who is not willing to testify voluntarily. 

Officer Gaulden is the only one who needs to be subpoenaed. If Plaintiff complies 

with the procedures in Section I, above, the Court will consider issuing a subpoena for 

Gaulden. 

As for Paul Sanders, the Court has issued an order for him to be transported for 

trial. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff does not need to do anything further to secure Mr. Sanders’ 

presence at trial.

 According to Plaintiff, Howard Johnson will come voluntarily and thus does not 

need to be subpoenaed. (ECF Nos. 55, 85, & 101.) Plaintiff himself must ensure that Mr. 

Johnson is aware of the trial, able to attend, and actually attends. Plaintiff must comply 

with Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3139, which governs inmate communications with 

parolees, in locating and contacting Mr. Johnson.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s request to subpoena Officer Gaulden (ECF No. 103) is taken under 

submission; and

2) Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 106) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00455-MJS Document 112 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3