(PC)Sykes v. Avenal State Prison

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00966
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TROY A. SYKES, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

14 AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al., (Doc. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Troy A. Sykes is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 21 confinement claim against Defendant John Doe, Avenal State Prison (ASP) Food Services Head 22 Manager, only. (See Docs. 14 & 15.) 23 On October 24, 2024, this Court issued its order granting Plaintiff ninety (90) days within 24 which to identify the John Doe defendant. (Doc. 16.) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 25 document titled “Plaintiff’s Request for Motion of Subpoena for Name of (A.S.P.) Food Services 26 Head Manager.” (Doc. 17.) 27 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 As Plaintiff was previous advised, the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum 3 requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations and “[d]irecting the Marshal’s 4 Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” 5 Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 6 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought, and the burden 7 and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information. (See Doc. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff 8 was also advised that a “motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by 9 clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only 10 through the identified third party.” (Id.) 11 Here, Plaintiff “requests Discovery from Defendants to produce name of John Doe who is 12 the Food Services Head Manager or equivalent title at Avenal State Prison.” (Doc. 17 at 1.) 13 Plaintiff also “requests the ninety days to file ‘notice of substitution’ begin when court receives 14 Discovery of requested information of name of John Doe.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied 15 without prejudice. 16 While the name of John Doe is relevant, Plaintiff has failed to identify any individual to 17 whom a subpoena should be directed. His reference to “Defendants” is unclear because the 18 previously named defendants, other than John Doe, have been dismissed from the action. (See 19 Doc. 15.) Nor has Plaintiff indicated that the name of the ASP Food Services Head Manager is 20 “obtainable only through” a third party. See Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 21 2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI- 22 SMS (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). 23 Assuming Plaintiff cannot obtain the identity of “John Doe, ASP Food Services Head 24 Manager” through other means,1 Plaintiff may resubmit his request for a subpoena to learn the 25 identity of John Doe. Plaintiff must identify an individual to whom the subpoena should be 26 directed,2 and explain how a record identifying John Doe is “obtainable only through the 27 1 Plaintiff may consider requesting the necessary information via a CDCR form 22. 1 identified third party.” To the extent Plaintiff believes the Court conducts discovery (see Doc. 17 2 at 1 [“when court receives Discovery of requested information”]), he is mistaken. See Womack v. 3 Virga, No. 2:11-cv-1030 MCE EFB P, 2012 WL 4465372, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (“The 4 role of the court is not to conduct discovery or research for the parties”). If the Court issues a 5 subpoena to any third party in the future, Plaintiff will be the recipient of the information sought 6 by the subpoena rather than the Court. 7 To allow Plaintiff sufficient time within which to either learn the identity of John Doe 8 through other means or to resubmit a proper request for a subpoena, including the information 9 referenced above, the Court will extend the stay for purposes of limited discovery an additional 10 ninety days. 11 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 13 1. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice; and 14 2. This action is STAYED an additional ninety (90) days to allow for limited discovery 15 concerning the identity of “Defendant John Doe, ASP Food Service Head Manager” 16 and for the filing of a “notice of substitution” once that identity has been learned. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

19 Dated: January 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 with knowledge and documentation concerning the individual employed as manager in the food services department.