Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

RUBEN HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE DOE 

DEFENDANT(S) OR FILE A REQUEST 

FOR A RULE 45 SUBPOENA

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Ruben Herrera is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim 

against the Doe DPS officer or officers that fired non-lethal rounds against him on September 18, 

2011.

On May 6, 2016, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a motion to 

substitute the Doe Defendant(s) or file a status report explaining the actions he took to locate the 

name of Doe defendant(s). (ECF No. 19.) On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an 

extension of time combined with a status report and a “motion for limited discovery.” (ECF No. 

21.) Plaintiff has also provided some information in objections filed on May 31, 2016. (ECF No. 

22.)

///

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 11/09/16 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

Plaintiff states that prior to filing this action, he wrote letters to obtain the names of the 

officers who shot at him on September 18, 2011. (ECF No. 21, p. 3.) Plaintiff received a 

response indicating that his request was construed as a request for a police report, and that it was 

forwarded to “DSH legal” so that he would receive that information. Plaintiff was directed to 

communicate further request regarding that incident to that office. Plaintiff does not give any 

information regarding what follow-up was done on this issue.

Plaintiff further states that in 2015, he requested the Department of Police Services’ 

policies and procedures in part to try and determine an alternative method to access the records, 

but those policies and procedures were not released to him on confidentiality grounds. (ECF No. 

21, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends that the State of California, through its employees, has “secreted the 

identities of those liable.” (Id.) He states that he believes that a non-party, Audrey King, the 

Executive Director of Coalinga State Hospital, should be compelled to reveal the names. (ECF 

No. 22, p. 6.) He seeks an order allowing him to obtain police reports, serious incident reports, 

memorandums, and communications, including electronic communications.

II. Legal Standards

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving party “at a 

minimum ... has the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of 

his motion to compel, which of the ... responses are disputed, why ... [the] responses are 

deficient, why the ... objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through 

discovery is relevant ....” Walker v. Karelas, No. CIV S-07-2545 MCE DAD P, 2009 WL 

3075575, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009).

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits issuance of subpoenas to obtain 

discovery from non-parties equivalent to discovery from parties under Rule 34. See Adv. Comm. 

Note to 1991 Amendment to FRCP 45. Rule 34 governs discovery of designated documents, 

electronically stored information, and designated tangible things subject to the provisions of 

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 11/09/16 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 

WL 3003718, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009) (citing Fahey v. United States, 18 F. R. D. 231, 

233 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)). Rule 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery, stating in pertinent part:

Parties 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, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 

the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). These standards mean that the Court may grant a request by Plaintiff to 

issue a Rule 45 subpoena to a properly identified non-party to discover information that is 

relevant to the party’s claims or defenses, is not burdensome, is not within Plaintiff’s reasonable 

access, upon a sufficient showing of the importance of the information. 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show any 

discovery response should be compelled here from non-party Audrey King. He has not shown 

that she has possession, custody, or control of the information he seeks. Instead, he has 

identified a potential source of a report pertinent to the incident; based on the response he 

received, it appears the Legal Department of the California Department of State Hospitals may 

possess and be willing to provide the information he seeks. However, Plaintiff has not explained 

whether and how he has followed-up with that entity. Plaintiff was previously informed by the 

Court that he may also be able to identify the officers from incident reports, rules violation 

reports, or other documents available in his central file, which may be available upon request 

from the hospital officials, without court intervention. He has not explained any recent attempts 

to request such information. Plaintiff must exhaust such avenues before the Court will consider 

the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena.

Plaintiff shall be permitted an additional thirty (30) days from the issuance of this order 

to either file a motion to substitute the Doe Defendant(s), or to file any request for a Rule 45 

subpoena to obtain the information necessary to identify the Doe Defendant(s). If he files a Rule 

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 11/09/16 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

45 subpoena request, he must meet the standards addressed above. Plaintiff is warned that this is 

his final opportunity to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this 

order, and with his obligation to identify the unknown defendants and substitute their identities 

in the complaint so that they may be properly served, will result in a recommendation to dismiss 

this action. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to compel a response pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37(a), (ECF No. 21), is denied; and,

2. Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, either

(a) file a motion to substitute the Doe Defendant(s), or 

(b) file any request for a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain the information 

necessary to identify the Doe Defendant(s).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 4