IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 24, 2009
STEVEN ROBERT CERNIGLIA, PETITIONER,
STEVEN MAYBERG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Dixon United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM [Doc. 33]
Petitioner is a State prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On January 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion seeking subpoena duces tecum authority from the court in an effort to obtain evidence in this instant action. (Court Doc. 33). Petitioner is requesting that the Court order Coalinga State Hospital to produce documentation and photographs of several petitioners' physical state upon their return from outside medical appointments.
Petitioner encloses declaration by Ruben Seja, James W. Wright Jr., David James Harney, Cornelius Boule, and Betty Harney, alleging they suffered physical injury at the hands of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officers and that Coalingha State Hospital employees inspected those injuries.*fn1 As Petitioner fails to specify in his motion the identity of the individuals whose physical state he is seeking to prove with the requested documentation, the Court can only assume he is asking for the records pertaining to the above named individuals.
As noted by Respondent, the Court has previously denied Petitioner's application for class action status. None of the above named individuals were included in the Court's October 29, 2009, order as petitioners with standing in this instant action. Consequently, the information as to these individuals are irrelevant to the instant action.
Furthermore, the Court notes that pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the leave of the of the Court is required before discovery may occur. Thus, good cause must be established before a judge may " authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery." Id. No such order has been issued by the Court and Petitioner has failed to make a good cause showing.
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, Petitioner's motion for subpoena duces tecum is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.