United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD
NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR FILING FRIVOLOUS MOTIONS AND
MISREPRESENTING FACTS TO THE COURT
Cruz Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 103). Plaintiff asked
that he be allowed to issue a subpoena to Deputy Probation
Officer Genny Magana for sentencing transcripts dated July 4,
2015, copies of photographs of injuries he sustained on
November 1, 2013, and incident reports written by
correctional officers regarding the incident that occurred on
November 1, 2013. Plaintiff stated that these documents are
not available from the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation or the Office of the Inspector General.
Plaintiff appeared to be alleging that the documents he
wanted to subpoena were only available through a third party,
failed to submit any evidence that he attempted to get the
documents from Defendants prior to filing the motion, the
Court required Defendants to file a response. (ECF No. 104).
filed their response on November 12, 2019. (ECF No. 107).
According to Defendants, not only were some of the documents
available through Defendants, Defendants have now provided
Plaintiff with copies of those documents.
did not file a reply to Defendants' response.
Court previously warned Plaintiff that “misrepresenting
facts to the Court may lead to sanctions, up to and including
the dismissal of his case.” (ECF No. 81, p. 1 n.1).
Despite this warning, it appears that Plaintiff represented
to the Court that certain documents were only available
through a third party subpoena, even though the documents
were available through a document request to Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why
he should not be sanctioned for misrepresenting facts to the
addition to apparently misrepresenting facts to the Court,
Plaintiff has repeatedly filed frivolous motions. For
example, on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 87). The Court
denied Plaintiff's request without prejudice, telling
Plaintiff that if he “chooses to refile the motion, the
earliest he should file it is ninety days before the
Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing, which is currently
scheduled for January 7, 2021.” (ECF No. 92, p. 2).
Despite this instruction, on November 7, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses at
“all future court hearings.” (ECF No. 105). No.
explanation was provided as to why Plaintiff needed
incarcerated witnesses to attend “all future court
hearings, ” or why the motion was filed despite the
Court's instruction regarding when the motion should be
another example, on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed two
motions to compel. (ECF No. 89). The motions were denied
because the motions were filed before Defendants'
deadline to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests
(or, alternatively, because the discovery requests were
premature and Defendants had no obligation to respond). (ECF
No. 102, p. 2). In denying the meritless motions, the Court
warned Plaintiff that “meritless motions may result in
sanctions or an award of costs.” (Id.).
has also repeatedly ignored the Court's instructions on
how to properly request the issuance of a third party
subpoena. The Court has, on several occasions, explained to
Plaintiff the showing he must make for the Court to grant a
motion for the issuance of a third party subpoena. (ECF No.
86, pgs. 3-4; ECF No. 93; & ECF No. 99). Despite these
instructions, in the motion for the issuance of a third party
subpoena Plaintiff filed on November 1, 2019, Plaintiff did
not even attempt to explain how the documents he is seeking
are relevant to this case. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed
yet another motion for the issuance of a third party
subpoena. (ECF No. 106). This motion was denied because,
“[d]espite being informed by the Court of the showing
he must make for the Court to grant a motion for the issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum, Plaintiffs motion does
not specify the person or entity he is seeking documents and
electronically stored information from, or the documents and
electronically stored information he is seeking.” (ECF
No. 109, p. 1).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff has twenty-one days from
the date of service of this order to show cause why he should
not be sanctioned for filing frivolous motions, and for
misrepresenting facts to the Court. Failure to respond to
this order may result in dismissal of this case.
 Prior to Plaintiff filing this motion,
the Court repeatedly informed Plaintiff that the Court would
only consider granting a motion for the issuance of a third
party subpoena if the documents requested are not obtainable
from Defendants through a request for production of