You're viewing Docket Item 13 from the case Austin v. Cermeno, et al.. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case4:12-cv-05187-YGR Document13 Filed07/12/13 Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARONDO AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CERMENO, et al.,

No. C 12-05187 YGR (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S NON-
PARTY DISCOVERY REQUEST; AND
GRANTING HIM A SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

/

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. In an Order dated June 24, 2013,
the Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint.

On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, "Motion to Order [California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] Correctional Counselor] Critchlow to Rele[ase] Documents
Entitled To Plaintiff for Amended Complaint." His motion is construed as a motion for leave to
conduct non-party discovery. According to Plaintiff, he is "asking this Court to order CDCR
Counselor Critchlow to release documents concerning the Plaintiff's amended complaint." (Pl.'s July
3, 2013 Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff requests, among others, for the production of "staff complaints, letters
to [the] warden, inspector general, and internal affairs explaining that the CDCR is hindering [his]
602 complaints, and that [he] never received them back to further exhaust them." (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff is reminded that federal courts do not conduct discovery for the parties. Moreover,

this Court cannot compel non-parties to provide Plaintiff with information unless he follows the
correct procedure according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may compel a person
who is not a party to this action to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant to a
subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In order to do so, Plaintiff must fill out
subpoena forms and must ensure that each person is served with the subpoena by a non-party.
Plaintiff must tender to each person "the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

t
t
r
r
u
u
o
o
C
C



t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D


s
s
e
e
t
t
a
a
t
t
S
S
d
d
e
e
t
t
i
i




n
n
U
U

a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case4:12-cv-05187-YGR Document13 Filed07/12/13 Page2 of 2

law." Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per day, see
28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. See Dixon
v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). There is nothing in the record showing that Plaintiff has
followed the aforementioned procedure prior to requesting the Court to order a non-party to produce
the document mentioned above. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct non-party
discovery (Docket No. 12) is DENIED at this time.

Good cause appearing, however, the Court on its own motion finds that Plaintiff should be

granted another brief extension of time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file his
amended complaint on or by August 30, 2013.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline above, this action will be
dismissed. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent extraordinary
circumstances.

This Order terminates Docket no. 12.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2013




YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Austin5187.2NDgrantEOT.wpd

2