Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126-20/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

HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

ECF No. 75

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

EXTEND DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION DEADLINES

ECF No. 76

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

ECF NO. 77

Before the Court are three motions from Plaintiff. On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No.75.) On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to extend the deadlines for discovery, filing dispositive motions, and the trial date. (ECF 

No. 76.) Finally, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 77.)

I.

MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Plaintiff’s September 25, 2014 motion requests a subpoena duces tecum to request certain 

documents from third party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 81 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3), the Clerk of the Court “must issue a subpoena, 

signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Defendant 

has not opposed Plaintiff’s motion.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to “issue an order to protect a 

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, 

including ... prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking 

discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “[A] court may be as inventive as the necessities of a 

particular case require in order to achieve the benign purposes of [this] rule.” U.S. v. Columbia 

Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1982).

The documents requested by Plaintiff appear to be documents which would be in the 

possession, custody, or control of Defendant S. Moore. Accordingly, the Court will require 

Plaintiff to demonstrate that he attempted to obtain these documents directly from Defendant S. 

Moore before seeking them from third party CDCR.

The Court is cognizant that Defendant S. Moore may argue that such documents are not 

within her possession, custody, or control despite being in the possession, custody, or control of 

CDCR. The Court is also cognizant that Defendant S. Moore’s representation by the California 

Office of the Attorney General puts Defendant’s counsel in the unique position of knowing 

whether the documents are in the possession, custody, or control of CDCR.

In an effort to avoid the unnecessary burden and expense of third party subpoena 

discovery, the Court will require Defendant’s counsel to review the request for documents 

attached to Plaintiff’s motion and inform Plaintiff whether there may be additional responsive 

documents in CDCR’s possession, custody, or control that were withheld from Plaintiff on the 

contention that such documents were not within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant 

S. Moore. If there are any such documents, the Court will permit Plaintiff to subpoena those 

documents from CDCR.

Finally, the Court advises Plaintiff that “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a copy 

to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person’s attendance, tendering the fees for 

1 day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). “Fees must be 

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 81 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 5
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

tendered concurrently with the subpoena.” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Such fees must be paid by Plaintiff to the witness even if the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis. Id. at 211-12. The subpoena may command “production of documents, electronically 

stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is

employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A).

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum without 

prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile his motion after attempting to seek the same documents 

directly from Defendant S. Moore.

II.

MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

Plaintiff’s December 24, 2014 motion requests an extension of the deadlines for 

discovery, filing dispositive motions, and the trial date1. (ECF No. 76.) The Court’s April 28, 

2014 Discovery and Scheduling Order set the deadline for conducting discovery for December 

28, 2014 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions for March 9, 2015.

Due to the Court’s order regarding Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions. The Court will 

extend the deadline for conducting discovery by 90 days, the approximate number of days 

Plaintiff would have had to conduct discovery as of the date he filed his motion for a subpoena. 

The Court will also extend the dispositive motion deadline to July 31, 2015.

III.

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff’s January 26, 2015 motion requests appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 77.) 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 

 

1 The Court has not yet set a trial date in this action.

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 81 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Moreover, even 

assuming a likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to 

articulate his claims. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for appointment of counsel.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 25, 2014 motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is 

DENIED;

2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Defendant’s 

counsel shall review the request for documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion for 

subpoena duces tecum and inform Plaintiff in writing whether there may be 

responsive documents in CDCR’s possession, custody, or control that were 

withheld from Plaintiff on the contention that such documents were not within the 

possession, custody, or control of Defendant S. Moore;

3. Plaintiff’s December 24, 2014 motion to extend the deadlines for discovery and 

for filing dispositive motions is GRANTED;

4. The deadline for conducting discovery is June 1, 2015;

5. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is July 31, 2015; and

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 81 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

6. Plaintiff’s January 26, 2015 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 81 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 5