Scott v. Ventura
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-07188
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In James Scott v. A. Ventura, Judge Gilliam granted blank subpoena forms but set requirements for any later non-party subpoena.
James Scott, the Clerk of Court, the United States Marshals Service, and any non-party whom Scott may later seek to subpoena.
What happened
In James Scott v. A. Ventura, et al., James Scott, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought claims alleging excessive force and sexual harassment. He asked to subpoena and depose an unnamed prison officer involved in a July 3, 2025 incident.
The court granted Scott’s request for blank subpoena forms, but it did not authorize a subpoena to the unnamed officer. Scott must identify the person, complete the forms, and later request court authorization for issuance and service by the United States Marshals Service. He also must explain the information’s relevance, why it can be obtained only from that third party, how its importance outweighs the burden and expense, and how recording costs will be paid.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the Clerk to send Scott two document-subpoena forms and terminated the request. The court also said Scott could seek the officer’s identity through discovery and suggested that video footage might instead be requested from a party to the case.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Ventura · No. 4:25-cv-07188
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
James Scott, an incarcerated person housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants used excessive force and sexually harassed him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This order addresses his request for a non-party subpoena to depose the unnamed Institutional Security Unit officer involved in a July 3, 2025 incident identified by incident log number 115506.
Ruling on the Subpoena Forms
The court said it has no jurisdiction over non-parties. It therefore treated Scott’s filing as a request for blank subpoena forms, because a non-party must be served with a subpoena to provide discovery. The court granted that request and directed the Clerk to send Scott two document subpoena forms, also called subpoena duces tecum forms. Scott must complete the required information, including the name of the person receiving the subpoena and the method for recording a deposition, while leaving the signature line blank.
To have the Clerk issue a completed subpoena and to ask the United States Marshals Service to serve it, Scott must file a motion with the completed subpoena. His motion must explain the relevance of the requested information and why its importance outweighs the non-party’s burden and expense; show that the records or information can be obtained only from the identified third party; and explain how recording costs will be paid given his indigent status.
Unnamed Officer and Third-Party Discovery
The court cautioned that it would not issue a subpoena to depose the unnamed officer at that time. The Marshals Service cannot serve an unknown person, so Scott must first determine the officer’s identity, potentially through the discovery process. The court also said it was unclear why Scott needed to depose the officer and noted that, if he seeks body-camera or surveillance video from the July 3 incident, he may be able to request it through discovery from a party already in the case.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the request for blank subpoena forms, directed the Clerk to send two forms, provided instructions for any later request to issue and serve a subpoena, and terminated Docket No. 8. The order did not authorize a subpoena to the unnamed officer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.