1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON, No. 2:24-cv-2354 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, with a civil 18 rights action pursuant to

. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s request for 19 clarification regarding subpoenas filed June 16, 2025. (ECF No. 30.) This Court construes 20 plaintiff’s request as a motion for issuance of subpoenas. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s 21 motion for issuance of subpoenas is denied. 22 To put plaintiff’s pending request in context, this Court sets forth the following 23 background information. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s complaint filed August 28, 2024 24 against defendants Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) Correctional Officers Malony and 25 Zaragoza. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Malony and Zaragoza violated the 26 Eighth Amendment by failing to provide plaintiff with medical care shortly after plaintiff was 27 administered Narcan. (Id. at 7-8.) On June 4, 2025, defendants Malony and Zaragoza filed an 28 answer to plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 28.) On June 6, 2025, the Court issued a Discovery 1 and Scheduling Order setting the discovery deadline as October 3, 2025 and the pretrial motion 2 deadline as December 26, 2025. (ECF No. 29.) 3 In the order screening plaintiff’s complaint, this Court found that plaintiff stated a 4 potentially colorable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant “john doe” lab tech regarding 5 the manner in which defendant “john doe” lab tech took plaintiff’s blood. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) 6 Plaintiff has not filed a motion to amend the complaint to substitute the real name for defendant 7 “john doe” lab tech. See Mosier v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2012

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2012). 9 In the pending request, plaintiff states that he would like to subpoena the correctional 10 officers who witnessed defendant “john doe” lab tech take plaintiff’s blood. (ECF No. 30 at 1.) 11 Plaintiff alleges that he has no subpoena forms. (Id.) This Court construes plaintiff’s pending 12 request as a motion for issuance of subpoenas. 13 A subpoena served upon a third party may seek only (1) testimony, (2) the production of 14 documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things within the possession, custody, or 15 control of the third party, or (3) inspection of premises. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(iii). To the 16 extent plaintiff seeks to subpoena the correctional officers as witnesses for trial, plaintiff’s request 17 for subpoenas is premature because defendant “john doe” lab tech has not been served and this 18 action is not set for trial. This Court also observes that the Discovery and Scheduling Order sets 19 forth the procedures for obtaining witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 29.) 20 To the extent plaintiff seeks to subpoena documents from the correctional officers, the 21 Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is 22 subject to limitations. See Wuco v. Doe,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2025). 23 Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b), 24 “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not 25 taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 26 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought, as well as the 27 burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information. See Wuco, 2025

at *2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45). ] A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear 2 || identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through 3 | the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 4 | 2010); Williams v. Adams,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal 5 || Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive 6 || or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 7 || F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s 8 | vigilance” in considering these factors.

9 To the extent plaintiff seeks to subpoena documents from the correctional officers, 10 | plaintiff does not identify the documents sought or address the relevance of the documents. 11 | Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that the documents sought are only obtainable through the 12 | correctional officers. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for issuance of subpoenas is denied. If 13 || plaintiff renews his motion for issuance of subpoenas, plaintiff shall address the legal standards 14 || set forth above. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for clarification 16 || regarding subpoenas (ECF No. 30), construed as a motion for issuance of subpoenas, is denied. 17 18 | Dated: July 17, 2025 A aA 19 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 | Wils2354.ord/2 23 24 25 26 27 28