Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773-9/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. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s second request for subpoenas. (ECF No. 28.)

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of the original complaint. The court screened 

and dismissed the original, first, and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim. 

(ECF Nos. 6, 12, 14.) The undersigned found that the third amended complaint stated cognizable 

deliberate indifference claims against Drs. Ashe and Kelley, but the complaint did not contain any 

additional claims. (ECF No. 18 at 5-7.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed immediately 

with the complaint as screened or file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff elected to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Thereafter, he submitted the 

fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) Therein, plaintiff alleged that his Eighth Amendment 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 30 Filed 10/13/23 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

right to adequate medical care was violated in connection with surgery performed by Dr. Kelley 

on August 17, 2020. (Id. at 3.) He identified Dr. Kelley, Dr. Ashe, and several San Joaquin 

General Hospital employees who participated in a medical malpractice hearing about plaintiff’s 

surgery. (Id. at 2.) By order dated October 11, 2023, the undersigned screened the fourth 

amended complaint and determined that the complaint states a cognizable claim against Dr. Ashe, 

and failed to state a claim against Dr. Kelley or the San Joaquin General Hospital employees who 

participated in a medical malpractice hearing following plaintiff’s surgery. (ECF No. 29 at 7-8.) 

II. Motion for Subpoenas

Plaintiff has submitted a renewed request for the issuance of two subpoenas directed 

toward Richard Castro, Chief Executive Officer, and Sheela Kapre, Chief Medical Officer. (ECF 

No. 28 at 1.) Both individuals are identified as employees at San Joaquin General Hospital and 

members of the Administration team. (Id.) He further requests that these individuals provide him 

with the name of the members of the Medical Malpractice Review Committee who held a 

meeting discussing plaintiff’s August 17, 2020, surgery. (Id.)

He states that the court previously denied his request for issuance of two subpoenas 

because there was no complaint pending before the court, but he has submitted a fourth amended 

complaint. (Id. at 3.)

The court’s October 11, 2023 screening order determined that the allegations against the

San Joaquin General Hospital employees who participated in the Medical Malpractice Review 

Committee was not sufficient to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 29 at 7-8.) Therefore, the 

court will not grant plaintiff’s request for discovery related to defendants who have been 

dismissed. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]here the 

identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff 

should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is 

clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 

other grounds.” (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980))). Because the 

defendants plaintiff seeks to identify through the subpoenas, the court will deny the request for 

subpoenas without prejudice. 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 30 Filed 10/13/23 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

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for two subpoenas (ECF 

No. 28) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: October 12, 2023

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/davi0773.subp(2)

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 30 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 3