Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

K. KELLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0773 DB P

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he has received inadequate medical care in violation of his 

rights. By order dated March 27, 2023, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Therein, the undersigned determined plaintiff stated a potentially 

cognizable deliberate indifference claim against defendant Drs. Kelley and Ashe, but did not 

contain any additional claims. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed immediately 

or to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7-9.) 

Plaintiff has responded by filing a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file an 

amended complaint (ECF No. 19), a request for subpoenas (ECF No. 20), a motion to amend 

(ECF No. 21), and has returned a notice of election indicating that he would like to file an 

amended complaint (ECF No. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will grant the 

////

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 05/08/23 Page 1 of 4
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

motions for an extension of time and to amend the complaint, and deny the request for subpoenas 

without prejudice. 

I. Motion for an Extension of Time

In response to the undersigned’s March 27, 2023, screening order, plaintiff sought a sixtyday extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Therein, plaintiff argues that 

additional time is necessary because he has been trying to identify “JOHN DOE actors at San 

Joaquin General Hospital that have given to [sic] rise to [his] potential claims against them, yet 

the JOHN DOE bad-actors refuse to cooperate with Plaintiff.” (Id. at 1.) Good cause appearing 

the court will grant the motion. However, plaintiff is cautioned that he additional requests for 

extensions of time may be scrutinized because plaintiff has had several previous opportunities to 

file a complaint stating cognizable claims.

II. Motion to Amend

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint concurrently with his completed notice of 

election form indicating that he intends to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) The court 

previously advised that plaintiff would be given the option to proceed with the complaint as 

screened or file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18 at 7.) Accordingly, the court will grant the 

motion to amend and direct plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 

III. Request for Subpoenas

Plaintiff requests the court issue plaintiff two separate subpoenas, so that he may conduct 

pre-screening discovery necessary to determine the identities of five John Doe defendants. (ECF 

No. 20.) Plaintiff’s motion does not contain any further information regarding the requested 

subpoenas. A separate filing states that plaintiff seeks to identify “John Doe actors at San Joaquin 

General Hospital that have given to [sic] rise to [his] potential claims against them, yet the John 

Doe bad-actors refuse to cooperate . . . .” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) 

A subpoena duces tecum, served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2), 

directs a non-party to an action to produce documents or other tangible objects for inspection. 

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is entitled to obtain personal service of an 

authorized subpoena duces tecum by the United States Marshal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). This 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 05/08/23 Page 2 of 4
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

court must consider the following matters before approving service of a proposed subpoena duces 

tecum. A subpoena must comply with the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case”), and 

considerations of burden and expense set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) 

and 45(d). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a 

duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” 

Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (requiring indigent plaintiff to 

demonstrate that he had “made provision for the costs of such discovery”), citing Cantaline v. 

Raymark Industries, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 447, 450 (S.D. Fla. 1984); see also United States v. 

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of 

compliance with subpoena to non-party). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this 

Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605. 

Additionally, courts in this district require that a motion requesting issuance of a subpoena 

duces tecum be supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents sought and from whom, 

and (2) a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party. See e.g. 

Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-1216 AWI SKO PC, 2010 WL 1948560, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 

2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-0124 AWI SMS PC, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 13, 2010). The person to whom the subpoena is directed must be clearly and readily 

identifiable, with an accurate physical address to enable personal service of the subpoena. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). 

Finally, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2), a subpoena duces tecum commands the recipient to 

“produce” documents. Plaintiff is advised that he may be provided access to review documents 

but that if he wishes to have copies of the documents, he may be required to photocopy them at 

his own expense. 

Plaintiff may be entitled to limited preliminary discovery to identify the names of John 

Doe defendants. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, the instant 

request should be denied because there is no complaint pending before the court at this time and 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 05/08/23 Page 3 of 4
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

the undersigned cannot determine whether the allegations against these individuals would state a 

cognizable claim. Id. Moreover, plaintiff has not provided any explanation of the identification 

of the information sought, from whom, or any showing that the information can only be obtained 

through a third party. Accordingly, this request will be denied without prejudice to its renewal. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 21) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 19) 

is granted. 

3. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Fourth Amended Complaint.” 

4. Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas (ECF No. 20) is denied without prejudice. 

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

Dated: May 8, 2023 

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/davi0773.amd

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 05/08/23 Page 4 of 4