UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 21, 2012
SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER, PLAINTIFF,
JENNINGS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ECF No. 63)
Plaintiff Samuel Kenneth Porter ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against Defendants Jennings, Lowe, and Darling for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for service of a subpoena duces tecum, filed June 12, 2012. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff moves for service of a subpoena requesting the production of "1 full copy of the Corcoran State Prison hearings including all documentary evidence, all questions, responses, and statements. One complete copy of all audio and visual of the hearing and evidence presented at the hearing and/or a website that contains the above." Plaintiff expects these documents to show that CDCR engages in a code of silence, and that this will demonstrate a cover-up by prison officials at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff seeks to serve the subpoena on the California State Assembly. Plaintiff includes as an exhibit a copy of a closing statement, dated October 22, 1998, authored by former California State Senator John Vasconcellos concerning the Corcoran State Prison hearings. 2
The Court will deny the motion. The Court is disinclined to authorize service for subpoenas 3 duces tecum that appear to not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 4 evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff fails to provide any explanation as to how the Corcoran 5 State Prison hearings from 1998 have any bearing on the outcome of this action. 6
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for service of subpoena duces 7 tecum, filed June 12, 2012, is denied. 8
IT IS SO ORDERED. 9
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.