Opinion
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA (Document 59)
DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Long Way ("Plaintiff"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on March 9, 2012, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is therefore not proceeding in forma pauperis.
On April 22, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for a subpoena directed to the Warden of USP-Atwater and seeking the names of the officers involved in the event at issue in Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on August 5, 2013. He was able to identify 27 employees as Defendants.
Also on August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena directed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office. Plaintiff sought "the 27 Defendants' full names and current address of facility of employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
On August 26, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve his Third Amended Complaint within 120 days. The Court also denied Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena as premature because Plaintiff had not yet attempted service and therefore could not show that he has been unable to serve Defendants.
On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for a subpoena directed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office. Plaintiff again seeks the full names of the 27 Defendants and their current place of employment with the BOP. For Defendants who are no longer employed with the BOP, Plaintiff requests their last known forwarding address.
Plaintiff states that he filed a prior request on October 31, 2013, and that no order has issued. However, a review of the docket indicates that the Court never received such a motion.
Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents from a non-party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. To obtain such relief, Plaintiff must file a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that identifies with specificity the documents sought and from whom.
Based on the information received from the prior subpoena to the Warden of USP-Atwater, Plaintiff named 27 Defendants. No Defendants were identified by their full names, with most identified with a first initial and last name. Some of the Defendants were identified only by last name.
The Court issued summons on August 27, 2013, based on the names provided by Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that on September 12, 2013, each Defendant was served with summons and a copy of the Third Amended Complaint.
As of the date of this order, eight Defendants (P. Scott, R. Gardea, J. Ciufo, K. Cole, C. Wolff, R. Ortiz, T. Adam and P. Shahota) have been served. The remaining summonses were returned "due to insufficient name or no longer employed at USP-Atwater." Mot. 2.
Plaintiff has now attempted service with the information he has been given. Nineteen Defendants have not been served, either because the name provided was insufficient, or because they no longer work at USP Atwater. Those nineteen Defendants are: W. Gray, Tincher, Bautista, B. Herrera, J. E. Garcia, F. Silver, Aquitania, Linsenmeyer, J. M. Sanchez, Aguirre, S. Jackson, L. Taitano, Fields, Robinson, Gallegos, Shandor, Paniagua, Watkins and Spencer. Plaintiff is entitled to additional identifying information for these 19 Defendants only. Identifying information includes full names, place of employment, and last known address where the individual is no longer employed with USP-Atwater.
The Court is issuing this subpoena because Plaintiff used the information he was given by USP-Atwater to serve Defendants, and then USP-Atwater interestingly returned many summons because they could not identify and/or locate the Defendant. If Defendants have another suggestion to address the service issues, the Court may reconsider this order.
1. Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, filed December 9, 2013, is GRANTED; and
2. Pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1), the parties are placed on notice that a subpoena duces tecum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office, shall be issued after fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.