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.

Samuel Kenneth Porter v. Captain Jennings

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 26, 2012

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CAPTAIN JENNINGS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENA (ECF Nos. 91, 95) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA (ECF No. 93)

I. Background

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 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against Defendants Jennings, Lowe, and Darlene for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's motion for service of subpoena, filed September 26, 2012; 2) Plaintiff's motion to modify a subpoena, filed October 1, 2012; and 3) Plaintiff's motion for service of subpoena, filed October 5, 2012. ECF Nos. 91, 93, 95. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. September 26, 2012 Motion

Plaintiff moves for the Court to process a subpoena duces tecum on the California State Assembly, seeking the production of the Corcoran State Prison Hearings. This request was previously adjudicated on September 21, 2012, when the Court denied service of the subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff now contends that the Corcoran State Prison hearings documents will demonstrate 2 that guards at Corcoran State Prison had a habit of covering up inmate rapes. Plaintiff also requests 3 documents related to an investigation by Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. Again, the Court does not 4 find that Plaintiff's requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 5 evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff fails to provide any explanation as to how the Corcoran 6 State Prison hearings from 1998, or Mike Wallace's investigation, have any bearing on the outcome 7 of this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. 8

III. October 1, 2012 Motion

Plaintiff moves to clarify a subpoena duces tecum which the Court ordered served on Calipatria State Prison. Plaintiff seeks to modify the subpoena duces tecum to include the audio/visual recordings of interviews conducted by the investigating officer regarding Plaintiff's crime/incident report complaint. The subpoena duces tecum specifically listed audio/visual recordings related to crime/incident report CAL-FDP-09-07-0349. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is denied as moot.

IV. October 5, 2012 Motion

Plaintiff moves for service of subpoena duces tecum on the Custodian of Records for CDCR regarding Stuart J. Ryan being fired because of Plaintiff's citizen investigation of his failure to allow Muslim prisoners to pray on rugs. Plaintiff contacted the United States and California Department of Justice. Plaintiff contends that his actions a direct result of motive by Defendants to allow his alleged rape. Plaintiff also seeks information regarding former correctional officer Poindexter, a correctional officer familiar with the use of "rape enforcers" and the culture of Corcoran State Prison.

The Court does not find that Plaintiff's requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff fails to identify what information he seeks. Plaintiff's contentions regarding past issues at Corcoran State Prison fails to relate to conduct by Defendants in this action.*fn1 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion.

V. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for service of subpoena duces tecum, filed September 26, 2012 and 4 October 5, 2012, are denied; and 5

2. Plaintiff's motion to modify the subpoena duces tecum, filed October 1, 2012, is denied as 6 moot. 7 8

IT IS SO ORDERED. 9


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.