CATO v. LANCASTER

Full title: ANTHONY S. CATO, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTIES LANCASTER, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 30, 2006

No. CIV S-01-0524 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-01-0524 MCE GGH P.

January 30, 2006

ORDER

GREGORY HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested six subpoena forms along with forms for witness and travel fees. Plaintiff has only identified four unincarcerated involuntary witnesses in the amended pretrial statement, filed on November 28, 2005, which was deemed a supplement to the November 4, 2005 pretrial order by in order filed on December 21, 2005 (as modified by the amended order filed on December 23, 2005).

Before the court will issue subpoenas, plaintiff must identify for whom the two additional subpoenas are sought and what testimony each will provide. Plaintiff has named two voluntary unincarcerated witnesses in his amended pretrial statement and for these potential witnesses, subpoenas should not be necessary. Moreover, prior to issuance of the subpoenas plaintiff must submit the fee for serving the subpoenas by the U.S. Marshal.See Tedder v. Odell, 890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9^th Cir. 1989) (finding no statutory authority allowing district courts to waive, in in forma pauperis actions, the payment of witness fees).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's January 17, 2006 request for subpoena forms is denied.