Alexander v. California Department of Corrections

11 Citing cases

  1. Wallace v. Jones

    No. CV-17-04126-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2022)

    Because personal service of the subpoenas is required, “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” Jackson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4537746, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018) (quoting Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010)). Courts must also be vigilant to ensure that non-parties are not burdened with excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena.

  2. Mascrenas v. Wagner

    Case No.: 19cv2014-WQH(BLM) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021)

    Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010) (quoting Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Also, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum."

  3. Clary v. Michaels

    CV 19-00066-H-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont. Mar. 9, 2021)

    The authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by a forma pauperis litigant is subject to limitations. Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required under Rule 45(b), “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena

  4. Jackson v. Paramo

    Case No.: 17CV882-CAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010) (quoting Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008)) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Also, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum."

  5. Longshore v. Herzog

    No. 4:17-cv-05003-MKD (E.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2017)

    However, the authorization of a subpoena duces tecum by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations. See Heilman, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1; Johnson v. Cheryl, 2013 WL 129383 at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2013) (unpublished) (citing Alexander v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010)). Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required under Rule 45(b), "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court."

  6. Santos v. Baca

    Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK (D. Nev. Jun. 27, 2016)

    "Directing the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Edwards v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 2015 WL 4623314, *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (citing Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010) (alteration omitted). Before tasking the U.S. Marshal with serving a pro se plaintiff's subpoena, this Court must be persuaded that the information sought meets a minimal threshold.

  7. Edwards v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't

    Case No. 2:13-cv-01316-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    By extension, the authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations. See Alexander v. California Dep't of Corrections, No. 2:08-cv-2773 MCE KJN P, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include "the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information."

  8. Wattree v. Cates

    EDCV 14-219-DSF (KK) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015)

    "Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information." Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., No. 2:08-CV-2773 MCE-KJN-P, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party.

  9. Thomas v. Guffy

    No. 2: 14-cv-0066 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)

    Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, "'[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court,' Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information.

  10. Pitts v. Davis

    2:12-cv-0823 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2014)

    Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court, ' Austin v. Winett , 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corr. , 2:08-CV-2773, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information.