UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 7, 2011
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION AS MOOT and DENYING REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS
(ECF Nos. 83 & 84)
Plaintiff George Hamilton ("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 December 27, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 82.) Before such order could be served on Plaintiff, he filed another request for an extension and that request is now before the Court. (ECF No. 83.) Because the Court has already given Plaintiff the relief he seeks in the instant Motion, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension is DENIED as moot.
On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion Requesting for the Court to Issue a Order Mandating Third-Parties/Defendants to Comply with Civil Subpoena Served by Plaintiff." (ECF No. 84.) Attached to the Motion are a number of subpoenas that Plaintiff served on various parties on December 26, 2010. The subpoenas demand that Plaintiff be allowed to access his legal files on January 10, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. (Id.) Plaintiff appears to be asking the Court to issue the attached subpoenas.
The discovery phase of this litigation is not yet open. Plaintiff is directed to paragraph seven of the Court's First Informational Order, filed March 2, 2005. In that order, Plaintiff was specifically informed that he may not conduct discovery until Defendants file an answer and the Court issues the discovery order. Issuance of subpoenas is discovery. Plaintiff's request for subpoenas is therefore premature. (The Court notes, however, that it has already asked the Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff's facility to assist him in gaining access to the documents he needs to prepare his opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss. If these efforts are unsuccessful and Plaintiff is still not afforded access to his documents, he should so notify the Court.)
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoenas is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.