(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR 45-DAY CONTINUANCE AS MOOT 14 VASQUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. (Doc. 106) 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiffs Motion For A Continuance Of 45 days with a 21 new discovery order for the limited purpose of exhaustion of administrative remedies.” (Doc. 22 106.) The motion is dated and signed April 6, 2022. (Id. at 2.) 23 Plaintiff’s motion is moot in light of the Court’s Order issued on April 8, 2022. (Doc. 24 105.) That Order continued the evidentiary hearing to June 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. (Id.) The 25 Order also directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s earlier request dated April 4, 2022, 26 (Doc. 100 [Ex Parte Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum]), by no later than April 15, 2022, and 27 provides Plaintiff until April 29, 2022, to file a reply. (Id.) 1 To the extent Plaintiff states he cannot afford the fees required to accompany a subpoena 2 due to his indigency, Plaintiff is reminded that proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) does not 3 mean he is entitled to proceed without incurring costs. Plaintiff is obligated to pay witness fees 4 and/or costs and to tender payment concurrently with the subpoena.1 See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.3d 5 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159-60 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[a]s a general 6 rule, indigent litigants bear their own litigation expenses”). In light of the continuance of the 7 evidentiary to June 22, 2022, Plaintiff now has additional time within which to save or obtain the 8 necessary funds— should the Court determine issuance of a subpoena is appropriate. 9 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance (Doc. 106) is DENIED 11 as moot. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: April 13, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 As another example, a pro se plaintiff proceeding IFP must pay the necessary fees associated with a subpoena for a witness to attend a deposition by written questions. Shepherd v. Neuschmid, Case No. 2:19- 27 cv-0084 JAM DB P, 2021 WL 117915 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to a waiver of any of the costs associated with this form of deposition; instead, he must pay the necessary deposition officer fee, court reporter fee, and costs for a transcript”).