Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 12cv113-BTM (RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR A HEARING DATE 

[ECF NO. 91] AND MOTION TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH 

SUBPOENAS [ECF NO. 84]

Plaintiff’s “Motion (Within Thirty (30) Days), for an Order of Compliance with 

Plaintiff’s Subpoena’s [sic]” (the “Motion to Compel”) with several exhibits was filed 

nunc pro tunc to September 15, 2017 [ECF Nos. 83, 84]. On September 22, 2017, 

Defendants filed an “Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Compliance with 

Plaintiff’s Subpoenas” [ECF No. 87]. On October 10, 2017, Williams filed a Reply [ECF 

No. 94]. Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking, inter alia, an order for a hearing date on the 

Motion to Compel (“Motion for a Hearing Date”), which was filed nunc pro tunc to

September 29, 2017 [ECF Nos. 90, 91]. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for 

a Hearing Date [ECF No. 91] and the Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] are DENIED.

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison officials Paramo, Olson, and Marrero of the Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, and against the County of Los 

Angeles. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Williams alleges that on January 5, 2012, Paramo 

conspired with Olson, Marrero, Los Angeles County, and the District Attorney, by 

placing an “R” suffix in her prison records1“alleging that on 8-26-91, 8-27-91, and 8-29-

91, the [P]laintiff (under juvenile court case number TJ01103) . . . was . . . convicted and 

. . . pleaded guilty to [California] Penal Code [section] 243.4 sexual battery . . . .” (Id. at 

3.) Plaintiff asserts that she was “never found guilty” of a sexual battery and there was an 

error in court records reflecting that she had a sex offense on her juvenile record. (Id.) 

She claims that as a result of being designated as a convicted sex offender, she began 

“receiving threats of harm” from prison gang members. (Id. at 4.) Williams contends

that she attempted to inform Paramo that she was in imminent danger of injury and death,

but Paramo disregarded her complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff further maintains that she tried to 

file a grievance on January 5, 2012, but Correctional Counselor R. Cobb refused to file 

her grievance and rejected her appeal. (Id. at 5.) She alleges violations of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of 

deliberate indifference, state law prohibitions against slander and libel, and conspiracy. 

(Id. at 3-5.) Williams seeks an injunction directing that the “R” suffix be removed from 

her prison records and that the offense of sexual battery be removed from her California 

 

1

 California Code of Regulations section 3377.1(b) provides that “[a]n ‘R’ suffix shall be affixed to an 

inmate’s custody designation to ensure the safety of inmates, correctional personnel, and the general 

public by identifying inmates who have a history of specific sex offenses as outlined in Penal Code (PC) 

Section 290.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3377.1(b) (West 2017).

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (“CLETS”) criminal records, $20 million 

in damages, $10 million in punitive damages, and other fees and costs. (Id. at 7.) 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

(ECF No. 24.) On May 29, 2013, the Court granted the motion, dismissed the case 

without prejudice, and entered a judgment for Defendants. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) On 

June 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed late objections to Defendants’ motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration, and denied

Plaintiff’s motion on September 3, 2017. (ECF Nos. 31, 39.) Williams timely appealed, 

and on January 7, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing 

this Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies, and remanding the case for further proceedings. 

Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015). 

On June 22, 2017, the Court issued a “Further Scheduling Order Regulating 

Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings.” (ECF No. 66.) The order set August 7, 

2017, as the deadline for the completion of fact discovery, and November 27, 2017, as 

the deadline for the completion of expert discovery. (Id. at 1-3.) On September 5, 2017, 

Plaintiff attempted to issue a subpoena directed to California State Prison-Sacramento, 

Correctional Counselor II, Litigation Coordinator, T. Kraemer. (Mot. Compel 7, ECF 

No. 84.) The subpoena requested the production of the following: “Departmental 

Operational Procedure (DOM’s), volume’s [sic] 1-5, CSP-Sacramento Operational 

Procedure, CDCR-128-B, chrono dated: 11-30-2011, CDCR-128-B-chrono, dated: 12-

14-2011, Juvenile #: J123758, and Juvenile #: TJ01103 convictions and abstracts of 

Justice’s [sic], Highland P/D arrest reports dated: 8-26-1991, completed CDCR-1432 

dated: 9/5/17.” (Id.)

T. Kraemer responded on September 7, 2017, that Plaintiff’s “subpoena delivered 

on September 6, 2017, to California State Prison-Sacramento in Represa, California” was 

invalid because it was improperly issued. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was advised that the 

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was formally 

objecting to her “subpoenas”, “[did] not acknowledge receipt of these subpoenas,” and 

would not produce “the documents requested in the subpoena.” (Id.)

Plaintiff completed a “Section A: Inmate/Parolee Request,” which enclosed the 

subpoena that is the subject of this motion, and a “CDCR-1432, Request to Inspect Public 

Records,” both dated September 5, 2017. (Id. at 4, 7.) She alleged that on August 31, 

2017, she sent a CDCR-22 form to Correctional Counselor II, J. Coburn, and “(AW) R. 

Meier” seeking the Olsen Reviews of her C-files, but did not receive any response. (Id.) 

On September 6, 2017, T. Kraemer responded that Williams “may request an Olsen 

review and any copies from [her] assigned counselor,” and referenced the “attached 

responses to [Plaintiff’s] subpoena and Public Records Act request.” (Id.) Further, in a 

letter dated September 7, 2017, T. Kraemer stated that the CDCR reviewed Plaintiff’s 

request and partially granted it pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Id. at 5.) 

Williams was advised that “[i]nmate C-file records [were] exempt from the mandate to be 

released as a public record due to inmate privacy laws[,]” but she “may request . . . C-file 

documents from [her] assigned counselor via an [Olsen] Review.” (Id.) With respect to 

juvenile court documents, Plaintiff was informed that they were not located in her C-file 

and had to be “request[ed] . . . directly from the respective courts.” (Id.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for a Hearing Date

Plaintiff asks the Court to set a hearing date on her Motion to Compel. (ECF No.

91.) In its September 20, 2017 Minute Order setting the briefing schedule on the Motion 

to Compel, the Court stated the following: “The Court will schedule a hearing on the 

motion, if appropriate. Absent further order, the Court will rule on this motion without 

oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1).” (ECF No. 85.) 

Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) provides that “[m]otions must be determined upon the 

moving papers referred to herein and oral argument[,]” and “[a] judge may, in the judge’s 

discretion, decide a motion without oral argument.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). Having 

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

reviewed the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court exercises 

its discretion and finds that the Motion to Compel is suitable for resolution without oral

argument. See id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing 

Date.

B. Motion to Enforce Compliance with Subpoenas

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling California State Prison-Sacramento, 

Correctional Counselor II, J. Coburn; Litigation Coordinator, T. Kraemer; and CDCR 

General Counsel, Patrick R. McKinney, II, to comply with her “repeated” subpoenas and 

discovery requests.2 (Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 84.) In support of her motion, Williams 

references the Court’s June 22, 2017 “Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other 

Pretrial Proceedings.” (Id. (citing Case Management Conference Order, ECF No. 66).) 

She also provides copies of a subpoena and “Section A: Inmate/Parolee Request,” both 

dated September 5, 2017, and California State Prison-Sacramento, Correctional 

Counselor II, Litigation Coordinator, T. Kraemer’s responses to both documents. (Id. at 

4, 7-8.) 

Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion and argue that Plaintiff’s “subpoenas” 

are invalid because they were issued by Williams, who is not “the court clerk or an 

attorney,” and because the subpoenas were served by mail, as opposed to personal 

service. (Opp’n 1-2, ECF No. 87 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3), (b)(1).) Defendants

also contend that the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin individuals and an entity that are not parties 

to this case; consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel them to take any action. 

(Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff replies that the Court should construe her pleadings liberally and provide 

her “the same constitutional rights” and powers as Defendants’ attorneys. (Reply 1-2, 

 

2

 Although Plaintiff seeks to compel compliance with her “discovery requests,” she has not provided 

any copies of her requests for production, interrogatories, or any other discovery requests. (See Mot. 

Compel 1-12, ECF No. 84; Opp’n 1-3, ECF No. 87.)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

ECF No. 94.) She asserts that she has authority to issue valid subpoenas because she is 

proceeding pro se, is incarcerated, and can only serve subpoenas by mail. (Id. at 3.) 

Williams also states that she was not provided with any “certified and stamped” 

subpoenas when the Court issued its June 22, 2017 scheduling order. (Id.) Finally, she 

appears to allege that the individuals and entities referenced in her motion are “enjoined 

to this action” as a result of their “continued” actions, and because they possess evidence 

pertaining to Defendants’ actions and their actions. (See id.) For these reasons, Williams 

asks the Court to grant her motion. (Id. at 1, 4.) 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff mentions multiple subpoenas that she allegedly 

issued and served [Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 84; Reply 1, ECF No. 94], but has provided 

a copy of only one subpoena dated September 5, 2017 [Mot. Compel 7-8, ECF No. 84]. 

Similarly, although Defendants reference Williams’s “subpoenas,” they specifically 

address only the September 5, 2017 subpoena. (Opp’n 1-2, ECF No. 87.) Because the 

parties have not provided the Court with any information concerning other subpoenas 

allegedly issued by Plaintiff, the Court will focus its analysis on the September 5, 2017

subpoena. 

The Court also notes that its June 22, 2017 “Further Scheduling Order Regulating 

Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings” set August 7, 2017, as the deadline for the 

completion of fact discovery. (ECF No. 66 at 2-3.) The order specifically provides, in 

relevant part, that “discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient 

period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that [discovery] may be completed by 

the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth 

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 1.) The deadline has passed, and 

Plaintiff did not file a motion seeking an extension of the fact discovery cutoff date for 

the purpose of serving her September 5, 2017 subpoena. 

Turning to the merits of the Motion to Compel, a subpoena may command a 

nonparty “to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). The subpoena is subject to the relevance requirements set 

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

forth in Rule 26(b) and may require the production of documents which are 

“nonprivileged” and “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs to the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that “[t]he clerk must issue a 

subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must 

complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena if the 

attorney is authorized to practice in the issuing court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). 

Plaintiff’s subpoena was signed by “Ms. Lonnie M. Williams-Turner, #T54378 

(plaintiff).” (Mot. Compel 7, ECF No. 84.) Although Williams is proceeding pro se, she 

is not admitted to practice law and is not an officer of the Court authorized to sign and 

issue a valid subpoena. The September 5, 2017 subpoena was not validly issued. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3); see also Cramer v. Target Corp., No. 1:08–CV–1693–OWW–

SKO, 2010 WL 1791148, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2010) (noting that a pro se plaintiff 

was “not an officer of the Court authorized to sign and issue a subpoena pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3)[]”); Gonzales v. Alameida, No. CV F 06 1417 OWW WMW P, 2008 

WL 161996, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2008) (“[A] party appearing in pro per can not issue

a subpoena.”); Jackson v. Woodford, Civil No. 05cv513 L(NLS), 2007 WL 2023551, at 

*1, 3 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2007) (finding that subpoenas were not properly issued, where

the clerk of court sent the subpoena forms to a pro se plaintiff, but did not sign and issue 

the subpoenas).

Service of a subpoena is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) 

which states that a subpoena may be served by “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old 

and not a party,” and “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named 

person . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). “[T]he in forma pauperis (IFP) statute provides 

that officers of the court will issue and serve all process in IFP actions . . . [and serve] a 

subpoena on behalf of an IFP party.” 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal 

Practice § 45.20, at 45-43 (3d ed. 2017) (footnotes omitted); see also 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 1915(d) (West 2006) (providing that in cases where a party is proceeding in forma 

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

12cv113-BTM (RBB)

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

pauperis, “[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all 

duties in such cases[]”); James v. Scribner, No. 1:04-CV-5878 LJO DLB P, 2008 WL 

3318879, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2008) (“As plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, he is entitled to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal [pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1915(d)].”). Because Williams served the September 5, 2017 subpoena 

herself and did so by mail, the subpoena was improperly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(b)(1); see also Jackson, 2007 WL 2023551, at *3 (finding improper service of 

subpoenas, where, inter alia, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis served 

the subpoenas himself); Cramer, 2010 WL 1791148, at *1-2 (finding improper service of 

subpoenas where a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis attempted to serve 

the subpoenas himself by mail). 

The Court finds that the September 5, 2017 subpoena was not properly issued and 

served and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3), (b)(1); 

see also Jackson, 2007 WL 2023551, at *3 (denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel 

compliance with improperly issued and served subpoenas).

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion 

for a Hearing Date [ECF No. 91] and Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2017

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 111 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8