Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Calderon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 1, 2008

DARRYLE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TECUM CALDERON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES

(Docs. 91, 102)

Plaintiff Darryle Williams ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court issue a subpoena duces tecum to be served on "William J. Sullivan, Warden / or Custodian of Records at California Correctional Institution". (Doc. 91.). On December 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a second motion for a subpoena duces tecum to be served on the Custodian of Records for California Correctional Institution, or the Custodian of Medical Records for ISS/DDPS. (Doc. 102).

A. Plaintiff's November 5, 2007 Motion for Subpoena

In this instant motion, plaintiff filed a request for a subpoena duces tecum to be served on the Warden or the Custodian of Records. 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, and must specify from whom he is seeking the documents. In this instance, plaintiff has not indicated what documents he seeks from the non-parties. Further, it is not clear from plaintiff's request where the documents sought are located, and the court will not send the United States Marshal on a fishing expedition. Plaintiff is also advised that the United States Marshal cannot serve a subpoena on a post-office box, like the address provided by plaintiff here.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion, filed November 5, 2007, is denied. B. Plaintiff's December 26, 2007 Motion for Subpoena In his second motion, plaintiff requests the following information from the Custodian of

Records, either at California Correctional Institution or ISD/DDPS: 1. The employment / sign-in roster for "medical" employees (specifically the x-ray technicians) on February 7, 2003 at Central Infirmary;

2. The CDCR identification number and location for William Arnold Levi;

3. The date that Inmate Romenion L. Elder (J-62129) was paroled, the city he was paroled to and his address, and also the name of Mr. Elder's parole officer;

4. The Employment Roster of the Correctional Officers assigned to Facility 4-A , including their full names, badge numbers, position, and assignment for the period from December 10, 2002 through December 12, 2002;

5. The Employment Roster of the Medical Staff (Chief Medical Officer, Health Care Manager, doctors, nurses, radiologists, radiology technicians, medical technical assistants) including their full names, identification numbers, and their assignments on January 13, 2003, January 26, 2003, and February 7, 2003;

6. The Employment Roster for the Custody Staff assigned to Central Infirmary, including their full names, badge numbers, and assignments, on February 7, 2002, February 21, 2003, and February 26, 2003; and

7. The criteria for placement in the Disability Placement Program ("DPP") in effect from June 2002 to June 30, 2003.

Request Nos. 2, 3, 7, and the portions of Requests Nos. 3, 4 and 5 concerning the names and identifying numbers/badges are not requests for documents but for responses. Plaintiff is attempting to also propound interrogatories upon non-parties, which he may not do.

With respect to his requests for the employment rosters (Requests Nos. 1 4, 5 and 6), plaintiff is entitled to seek documentary evidence from third parties via the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, as explained above. Plaintiff must describe the documents he is seeking, which plaintiff has done, and must specify from whom he is seeking the documents. In this instance, plaintiff states that the documents are either in the possession of the Custodian of Records at California Correctional Institution or ISD/DDPS, and has not provided an address for service. It is not clear to the court where the documents plaintiff seeks are located. Plaintiff's motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal accompanied by an offer of proof concerning the location of the documents, and a statement concerning upon whom the third party subpoena would be served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080801

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.