(PC) Davis v. Kelley ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN DAVIS, No. 2:22-cv-0773 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. KELLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he has received inadequate medical care in violation of his 19 rights. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s second request for subpoenas. (ECF No. 28.) 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of the original complaint. The court screened 22 and dismissed the original, first, and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim. 23 (ECF Nos. 6, 12, 14.) The undersigned found that the third amended complaint stated cognizable 24 deliberate indifference claims against Drs. Ashe and Kelley, but the complaint did not contain any 25 additional claims. (ECF No. 18 at 5-7.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed immediately 26 with the complaint as screened or file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7.) 27 Plaintiff elected to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Thereafter, he submitted the 28 fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) Therein, plaintiff alleged that his Eighth Amendment 1 right to adequate medical care was violated in connection with surgery performed by Dr. Kelley 2 on August 17, 2020. (Id. at 3.) He identified Dr. Kelley, Dr. Ashe, and several San Joaquin 3 General Hospital employees who participated in a medical malpractice hearing about plaintiff’s 4 surgery. (Id. at 2.) By order dated October 11, 2023, the undersigned screened the fourth 5 amended complaint and determined that the complaint states a cognizable claim against Dr. Ashe, 6 and failed to state a claim against Dr. Kelley or the San Joaquin General Hospital employees who 7 participated in a medical malpractice hearing following plaintiff’s surgery. (ECF No. 29 at 7-8.) 8 II. Motion for Subpoenas 9 Plaintiff has submitted a renewed request for the issuance of two subpoenas directed 10 toward Richard Castro, Chief Executive Officer, and Sheela Kapre, Chief Medical Officer. (ECF 11 No. 28 at 1.) Both individuals are identified as employees at San Joaquin General Hospital and 12 members of the Administration team. (Id.) He further requests that these individuals provide him 13 with the name of the members of the Medical Malpractice Review Committee who held a 14 meeting discussing plaintiff’s August 17, 2020, surgery. (Id.) 15 He states that the court previously denied his request for issuance of two subpoenas 16 because there was no complaint pending before the court, but he has submitted a fourth amended 17 complaint. (Id. at 3.) 18 The court’s October 11, 2023 screening order determined that the allegations against the 19 San Joaquin General Hospital employees who participated in the Medical Malpractice Review 20 Committee was not sufficient to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 29 at 7-8.) Therefore, the 21 court will not grant plaintiff’s request for discovery related to defendants who have been 22 dismissed. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]here the 23 identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff 24 should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is 25 clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 26 other grounds.” (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980))). Because the 27 defendants plaintiff seeks to identify through the subpoenas, the court will deny the request for 28 subpoenas without prejudice. 1 Il. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for two subpoenas (ECF 3 | No. 28) is denied without prejudice. 4 | Dated: October 12, 2023 5 6 4 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 DB:12 9 | DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/davi0773.subp(2) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28