(PC) Williams v. Thompson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 1:19-cv-00330 NONE JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA 13 v. (Doc. 39) 14 THOMPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In this prisoner civil rights action, Plaintiff proceeds on several claims against defendants 18 Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker, Cristales, Hawthorne, Rabaino, Scalley, and Perez. To date, all of 19 the defendants have been served except for Perez, a correctional officer. As to him, the Litigation 20 Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California (“CSP-Cor”) declined to accept service 21 for this defendant because “they are unable to identify ‘Perez’ because there are multiple staff 22 members with that last name.” (See Doc. 23.) Plaintiff now moves for a subpoena to be served on 23 the CSP-Cor Litigation Coordinator to obtain documentation that would help identify the proper 24 employee named Perez. 25 The Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis 26 plaintiff is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b), “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources 28 personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court,” Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 1 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Limitations include the relevance of the 2 information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested 3 information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be 4 supported by clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are 5 obtainable only through the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, 2010 WL 1948560, *1 6 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Williams v. Adams, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010). The “Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual 8 expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 9 (M.D. Pa. 1991). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this Court's vigilance” in 10 considering these factors. Id. 11 Plaintiff’s motion seeks a copy of the employee sign-in log sheet from February 19, 2019, 12 which he contends would identify defendant Perez, who was assigned a “post position in CSPC 13 YA04 administrative segregation unit (ASU) alongside defendant Cristales 2:00 p.m., to 10:00 p.m., 14 which is considered ‘Third Watch.’” (Doc. 39 at 1-2.) The Court finds that the information sought 15 is relevant to Plaintiff’s prosecution of this action, and the motion is sufficiently specific to clearly 16 identify the information sought. It will therefore be granted. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as 17 follows: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena (Doc. 39) is GRANTED; 19 2. The Clerk of Court shall forward the following documents to the United States 20 Marshal (USM): 21 a. One completed and issued subpoena duces tecum to be served on: 22 Litigation Coordinator 23 California State Prison, Corcoran 24 4001 King Avenue 25 Corcoran, CA 93212 26 b. One copy of the complaint (Doc. 1); 27 c. One copy of Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 39); 28 d. One completed USM–285 form; and 1 e. Two copies of this order, one to accompany the subpoena and one for the USM; 2 In completing the subpoena, the Clerk of Court shall list, as described here, the tangible 3 item requested: A copy of the employee sign-in log sheet from February 19, 2019, which would 4 help identify defendant Perez, who was assigned a “post position in CSPC YA04 administrative 5 segregation unit (ASU) alongside defendant Cristales 2:00 p.m., to 10:00 p.m., which is 6 considered ‘Third Watch.’” 7 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, the USM is DIRECTED to serve the 8 subpoena in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 9 4. The USM shall effect personal service of the subpoena duces tecum, along with a copy 10 of this order, a copy of the complaint, and a copy of Plaintiff’s motion upon the individual 11 named in the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 12 U.S.C. § 566(c); 13 5. Within ten days after personal service is completed, the USM shall file the return of 14 service, along with the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service, and said costs shall be 15 enumerated on the USM–285 form; and 16 6. Within fourteen days after service is completed, the Litigation Coordinator at 17 California State Prison in Corcoran, California is directed to serve the responsive documents on 18 Plaintiff: 19 John Wesley Williams Inmate # V-34099 20 R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (480) 480 Alta Road 21 San Diego CA 92179 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: September 16, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28