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.

Troas V. Barnett v. David Norman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 25, 2011

TROAS V. BARNETT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DAVID NORMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENAS (Doc. 116)

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 9, 2005. (Doc. 1). On July 20, 2010, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of March 20, 2011 for completion of discovery, including motions to compel, and a deadline of May 31, 2011 for filing pretrial dispositive motions. (Docs. 59, 77). On October 24, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery for the limited purpose of conducting discovery as it relates to Defendants' personnel files. (Doc. 124).

On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court send Plaintiff subpoena forms so that he can serve subpoenas on the Defendants. (Doc 116). However, discovery is only extended for limited purpose of completing discovery as it relates to Defendants' personnel files. Even if said request for subpoenas were within the scope of the limited extension of discovery, Plaintiff must first request discovery from Defendants and if Defendants fail to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, then Plaintiff may seek a motion to compel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A). In addition, Plaintiff may request issuance of subpoenas from the Clerk of Court pursuant to Rule 45(a)(3). Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status will not relieve him from the payment of fees or expenses associated with the subpoenas. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir.1989). Plaintiff must first serve the subpoenas, and if the subpoenaed parties do not comply, then Plaintiff may file a motion to compel those parties to comply with the subpoenas.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion requesting subpoena forms, filed on July 22, 2011, is DENIED. (Doc. 116).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20111025

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.