Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878-41/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JOHN E. JAMES, III., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5878 REC DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

(DOC 192, 199)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed against numerous correctional guards at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) for allegedly using

excessive force on July 16, 2003, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to third parties. Defendants filed an

opposition to the motion on August 10, 2007 and plaintiff filed a reply on August 27, 2007.

Plaintiff requests that the court issue a subpoena duces tecum to the Office of Inspector

General and the Office of Internal Affairs for CDCR. Plaintiff seeks documents the court previously

ordered defendants to produce, namely, documents relating to the use of force on plaintiff on July 16,

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 222 Filed 03/17/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

2003 including, medical records, incident reports, statements or other investigative materials. See,

Doc. 131 at p.3:20-24. Plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to produce the documents after

being ordered to do so by the court. He therefore now requests that the third parties be ordered to

produce the documents.

Plaintiff is entitled to seek documentary evidence from third parties via the issuance of a

subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which would be served by the

United States Marshal given that plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must describe

the documents he is seeking, which plaintiff has done, and plaintiff must specify from whom he is

seeking the documents. Directing the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a

subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. In this instance, the court has concerns about futility, as

defendants represent that they have produced all documents related to the use of force on plaintiff. 

See Doc. 152: p.3:3-5. It is not clear to the court what additional documents plaintiff seeks from the

third parties and the court will not send the Marshal on a fishing expedition. Plaintiff’s motion is

denied, without prejudice to renewal accompanied by an offer of proof concerning the existence of

the documents and the location of the documents. Upon such filing, defendants will be ordered to

respond to the motion providing further information regarding the existence of additional documents

relating to the use of force against plaintiff. If additional documents exist, defendants are required to

produce them to plaintiff pursuant to this court’s order of June 2, 2006. 

The Court again reminds plaintiff that it is not unusual in civil cases for the parties to

disagree about whether each side has produced all available information in response to discovery. In

such cases, and absent direct evidence to the contrary, the Court must take parties at their word when

they represent that they have fully complied with a discovery request or order of the court. 

Defendants are reminded, however, that they will be precluded from using at a trial, at a

hearing or in any motion, any information covered by this Court’s orders or defendants’ continuing

duty to supplement, which has not been produced to plaintiff. Furthermore, defendants will be

sanctioned should the Court determine that documents were withheld from plaintiff in violation of a

court order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 222 Filed 03/17/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum is DENIED

without prejudice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 222 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3