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.

Daniel v. Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 16, 2009

MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. PADILLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 26, 2009, plaintiff filed motions seeking an order requiring the Department of Corrections and the San Joaquin County Mental Health Department to release his own mental health records. However, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his mental health is "at issue" in this proceeding.*fn1 These motions will be denied without prejudice.

On June 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a second request to subpoena a list of witnesses. Plaintiff's request is premature. It is the responsibility of the party who has secured a witness' voluntary attendance to notify the witness of the time and date of trial. No action need be sought or obtained from the court. If a prospective witness refuses to testify voluntarily, not earlier than four weeks and not later than two weeks before trial, the party must prepare and submit to the United States Marshal a subpoena for service by the Marshal upon the witness. The instant case is not set for trial until November 16, 2010. Thus, plaintiff's request will be denied as premature.

On June 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Notice to Produce; Demand for Document Inspection." Within that filing, plaintiff states that he is seeking these documents from the City Attorney, not the court, and is only sending the court a copy of the records. Plaintiff is advised that this court is not a repository for discovery. As this court has previously informed plaintiff, discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. Plaintiff's June 9, 2009 notice will be placed in the court file and disregarded. However, plaintiff is cautioned that continued violation of this rule may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 26, 2009 motions (#42 & #43) are denied without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff's June 9, 2009 request to subpoena (#46) is denied without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff's June 9, 2009 notice (#47) will be placed in the court file and disregarded.


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.