Johnson v. Meyer

Background

Joseph Jamaul Johnson asked the court to subpoena someone apparently connected with the prison litigation office so he could learn the names of people who participated in a July 16, 2018 incident. Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the information was irrelevant because the court had already dismissed the excessive-force claim against the unidentified guard who fired the shot that struck Johnson while other inmates attacked him.

The case also included a claim the court found cognizable under the Eighth Amendment: that defendants Matias, Salgado, and Perez stood by and watched while Johnson was attacked before the shot was fired. The court said the shooter might have information relevant to that remaining claim, whether or not Johnson later sought permission to add the shooter as a defendant.

Subpoena ruling

The court explained that it does not conduct discovery—the process parties use to obtain information and evidence—for a party. It therefore would not prepare the subpoena. Instead, it granted Johnson’s subpoena request in part and directed the clerk to mail him a blank subpoena form for producing documents.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally allows a subpoena to require testimony at a deposition or production of documents or things, but does not allow a subpoena to directly seek information such as the names of people present on a particular day. Johnson could instead request documents that might identify which staff members were present at a particular place and time. He needed to identify the recipient, adequately describe the requested documents or things, and set a production date, usually several weeks after issuance.

The court also noted that Johnson could request a subpoena requiring a person to testify at a deposition about who was present. It stated, however, that this would generally be impracticable for a self-represented prisoner proceeding without paying the normal filing-related costs because he would have to pay witness fees, pay for a court reporter, and arrange the deposition at the prison. The court said it could not waive those fees.

Deadline ruling

The court granted defendants’ request for a 60-day extension of the deadline to file a dispositive motion. It set these deadlines: defendants had to file and serve their motion by January 22, 2021; Johnson had to file and serve his opposition by March 5, 2021; and defendants had to file and serve any reply by March 26, 2021.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted Johnson’s subpoena request in part and granted defendants’ request for the deadline extension. The clerk was ordered to mail Johnson a blank document-production subpoena form.