IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 18, 2013
RAEKUBIAN A. BARROW,
WARDEN CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, CORCORAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA (ECF No. 72)
Plaintiff Raekubian A. Barrow, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on February 1, 2010 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)
This matter proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint which states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Martinez. (ECF No. 32.)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion requesting that the Court Clerk provide him with witness subpoena(s). (ECF No. 72.)
Plaintiff's Motion shall be denied.
Firstly, Plaintiff's Motion is not a sufficient response to the Court's February 11, 2013 Order (ECF No. 70) directing him to make a showing, under penalty of perjury, that he is able to pay the costs and fees of service of any desired deposition subpoenas and the costs of an officer to record and transcribe testimony taken.
Secondly, Plaintiff has not identified the witness(es) he desires to subpoena and explained what discoverable information is sought from them. A subpoena can be used to command a person to do the following: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The Court will consider a request for subpoena only if the witness will provide discoverable information, not already available to Plaintiff, and not obtainable through a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff's bare request for witness subpoena(s) is not sufficient.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena (ECF No. 72) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.