UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 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. 61)
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
On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed his second motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff's first motion was denied because the documents sought bore no apparent relevance to the claims in this action. In his second motion, Plaintiff indicates he is seeking to compile a witness list of inmates who discussed Defendant Yates' knowledge of Valley Fever while at Soledad.
Subject to certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents from non-parties, and to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Plaintiff wishes to make a request for the issuance of a records subpoena, he may file a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that the records are only obtainable through that third party. Further, to the extent that the relevance of the documents to the claims in this action is not relevant, Plaintiff is required to make an offer of proof as to their relevance. The conclusory statements in Plaintiff's motion are not sufficient to support his request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, filed March 3, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.