(PC) Rockemore v. Vasquez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01339
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUNTEZ K. ROCKEMORE, No. 1:21-cv-01339 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS 14 A. VASQUEZ, et al., (ECF No. 32) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case is at the 20 discovery phase of the proceedings. See ECF No. 24 (Discovery and Scheduling Order). 21 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s third motion that subpoenas issue in this case. ECF No. 32. 22 For the reasons stated below, the request will be denied. 23 I. MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 24 In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue “three signed but otherwise blank 25 supoenas ad testificandums [sic], and a third signed but otherwise blank subpoena duces tecum.” 26 ECF No. 32 at 1 (errors in original). He fails to indicate why these subpoenas are needed; what 27 relevant information he believes they will yield, and to whom or for what items they will issue. 28 See generally id. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s third request that subpoenas issue must be denied. As Plaintiff has been 3 previously informed, with respect to his request that additional subpoenas duces tecum issue, in 4 this district, such requests must be supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents sought 5 and from whom, and (2) a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified 6 third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216 AWI SKO (PC), 2010 WL 1948560, at 7 *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124 AWI SMS (PC), 2010 WL 8 148703, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). See ECF No. 30 (Court’s order regarding Plaintiff’s first 9 motion for a subpoena duces tecum). Plaintiff’s motion fails to provide any of this information. 10 See generally ECF No. 32. 11 As for Plaintiff’s requests that subpoenas ad testificandum issue, they must also be denied 12 for the following reasons: 1- Plaintiff has not provided any information about his subpoena 13 requests, e.g., what types of testimony-related subpoenas he needs; and 2- why he needs them, 14 what information the subpoenaed individuals will provide, etcetera. See generally ECF No. 32. 15 Next, this case is in the discovery phase of the proceedings. See generally ECF No. 24 16 (August 2023 discovery and scheduling order). Consequently, it is unclear why the testimony of 17 other individuals is needed at this time. In any event, to the extent the subpoenas Plaintiff is 18 requesting are for other inmates, in order for the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad 19 testificandum, Plaintiff must first provide: 1- to what the inmate witness will testify; 2- how he 20 knows the inmate witness will testify as such; and 3- why the testimony is necessary. Greene v. 21 Prunty, 938 F. Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Here again, Plaintiff has failed to provide any of 22 this information in his motion. See generally ECF No. 32. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s third 23 request for subpoenas will be denied. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s third motion that subpoenas 25 issue (ECF No. 32) is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27

28 Dated: January 3, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28