UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 20, 2009
STANLEY H. SOLVEY, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (Doc. 51)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 54)
Amended Discovery Deadline: May 27, 2009
Plaintiff Stanley H. Solvey ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding against Defendants Yates, Igbinosa, Beels, Greene, Duty, Chambers, Long, Sellers, and Hilts on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed June 20, 2007.*fn1 Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the deadline for the completion of all discovery is April 27, 2009, and the deadline to file pretrial dispositive motions is June 29, 2009.
On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a letter requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. The letter was filed and docketed as a motion by the Clerk's Office, and shall be construed as such by the Court.
According to the subpoena form submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an order directing the Litigation Department at the California Training Facility in Soledad, where Plaintiff is presently incarcerated, to produce the inmate roster or bed/cell roster of inmates in administrative segregation ("ad-seg") on July 4, 1995, and the names, cell numbers, and CDC numbers of all inmates in ad-seg on July 4, 1995. (Doc. 51, p. 2.) The documents sought by Plaintiff appear wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims in this action, which arise from his exposure to Valley Fever while at Pleasant Valley State Prison and Defendants' alleged failure to provide him with proper medical treatment, and which occurred in 2005 and 2006. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is denied.
On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff contends he has had very little access to the law library to conduct research and prepare documents. According to Plaintiff's declaration, he will be released on parole on March 26, 2009. The Court will extend the deadline by only one month. If, after his release, Plaintiff seeks a further extension, he will be required to set forth in detail what he has done in discovery, what he still needs to do, and why he has been unable to do it within the time allotted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, filed January 15, 2009, is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's motion seeking an extension of the discovery deadline, filed February 6, 2009, is GRANTED; and
3. The discovery deadline is extended from April 27, 2009, to May 27, 2009, and the extension applies to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.