Opinion
CV-20-00558-TUC-JCH
10-14-2022
Kilian Gregoire Hale, Plaintiff, v. A. Ferguson and Alice Warren, Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. HINDERAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Hale's “Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non Party Witness, by Self-Represented Litigant” (“Motion”) (Doc. 75), and Plaintiff's Notice of Errata (“Notice”) (Doc. 77).
I. Background
On September 14, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice another of Plaintiff's motions titled “Motion for Issuance of Subpoena duces Tecum Upon Non Party Witness, by Self-Represented Litigant” (Doc. 71). (See Doc. 74 at 3.) In that motion, Plaintiff sought to amend the wording of an improper subpoena on the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry (“ADCRR”). (Id.) The Court explained that Plaintiff's motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the proposed subpoena as required by the Court's General Order 18-19. (Id.) The Court further directed the Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff one blank unissued subpoena duces tecum form along with a copy of the Order. (Id. at 4.) Later the same day, the Clerk of the Court complied with the Court's order. (See docket generally.) The following Friday, September 23, Plaintiff filed the Motion before the Court now. (Doc. 75.) On September 29, Plaintiff filed an untitled letter directed to the Clerk of the Court, which the Clerk construed as a “Notice of Errata.” (Doc. 77.)
II. Analysis
In his Motion, Plaintiff repeats the issues the Court ruled on in its September 14 Order. (Compare Doc. 75, with Doc. 74 at 3.) The Court therefore infers that Plaintiff had not yet received a copy of the September 14 Order providing instructions on how to reissue his subpoena. For that reason, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff's Motion.
In his Notice, Plaintiff states that he mailed a “Proposed Subpoena Duces Tecum” to the Court on September 17, 2022, and inadvertently wrote “To Be Served By Mail” where he should have written his mailing address. Although the Notice is somewhat unclear-and does not comply with L.R. Civ. 7.1-the Court infers that Plaintiff incorrectly filled out the blank unissued subpoena form sent with its September 14 Order. The Court will therefore direct the Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff one more blank unissued subpoena duces tecum form with a copy of this order. If Plaintiff still wishes to have the subpoena issued, Plaintiff must fill out the blank unissued subpoena duces tecum form in accordance with the Court's General Order 18-19 and this Court's prior Orders on Plaintiff's motions seeking the issuance of subpoenas. (See Docs. 41, 46, 56, 71.)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 75).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff one blank unissued subpoena duces tecum form with a copy of this Order. If Plaintiff wishes to have the blank subpoena form issued, he must fill it out in accordance with the Court's April 18, 2022 Order and resubmit it as another motion for issuance of a subpoena. Plaintiff must do this in time for the subpoena to be served, the subpoenaed party to produce the documents, and Plaintiff to comply with the November 6, 2022 discovery cut off by producing the subpoenaed documents to Defendant.