(PC) Madsen v. Toor ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL MADSEN, 1:19-cv-0022 AWI JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS 13 v. (Doc. 18) 14 DR. KIRAN TOOR, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This action is pending on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 18 administrative remedies. Shortly after Defendant filed that motion, Plaintiff moved for subpoenas 19 to depose two nurses who allegedly witnessed Defendant’s conduct underlying Plaintiff’s Eighth 20 Amendment claim. (Doc. 18.) In light of the pending motion to dismiss and the procedural 21 posture of this case, Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena will be denied as premature. See Smith v. 22 Municipality of Fresno, 1:19-cv-0651-DAD-EPG, 2019 WL 6618059, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 23 2019) (“If the Court finds cognizable claims in this matter and orders that the case proceed to the 24 discovery stage, the Court will instruct Plaintiff as to how to issue subpoenas.”); Wallace v. 25 Pierce County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3:19-cv-5329-RBL-DWC, 2019 WL 2141640, at *6 (W.D. Wash. 26 May 16, 2019) (denying request for a subpoena as premature “[a]s the Court has not yet served 27 Plaintiff’s complaint or entered a pre-trial scheduling order.”) 28 //// 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas is DENIED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: September 10, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28