Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bell v. Core Civic

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 10, 2019

CAMERON BELL, Plaintiff,
v.
CORE CIVIC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Cameron Bell brings this lawsuit for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration at Nevada Southern Detention Center. The court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed his state-law tort claims of battery, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on diversity jurisdiction against defendants Correctional Officer McMurtrey, Warden Janice Killian, and CoreCivic, Inc. (Order (ECF No. 15).) Presently before the court are the following motions:

         Bell's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Documents and Witness Forms (ECF No. 42), filed on March 11, 2019. CoreCivic and McMurtrey filed a response (ECF No. 43) on March 26, 2019.

         CoreCivic and McMurtrey's Motion to Extend Time to File Discovery Motions (ECF No. 45), filed on April 25, 2019. The motion is unopposed.

         Bell's Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum for Psychology Records (ECF No. 46), which was filed under seal on April 25, 2019. The motion is unopposed.

         Bell's Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents, Video Surveillance, and Photographs of the Incident (ECF No. 47), which was filed under seal on April 25, 2019. The motion is unopposed.

         CoreCivic and McMurtrey's Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 49), filed on May 13, 2019. The motion is unopposed.

         Bell's Motion to Extend Time to File Discovery Motions (ECF No. 50), filed on May 20, 2019. CoreCivic and McMurtrey filed a response (ECF No. 56) on June 4, 2019. Bell did not file a reply.

         Bell's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 51), which was filed under seal on May 20, 2019. CoreCivic and McMurtrey filed a response (ECF No. 57) on June 5, 2019. Bell did not file a reply.

         Bell's Motion for Status Report and Teleconference (ECF Nos. 61, 62), filed on August 19, 2019. CoreCivic and McMurtrey filed a response (ECF No. 64, 65) on September 3, 2019. Bell did not file a reply.

         Bell's Motion for Scheduling Order to be Amended (ECF No. 63), filed on August 19, 2019. CoreCivic and McMurtrey filed a response (ECF No. 66) on September 3, 2019. Bell did not file a reply.

         I. Motion for subpoena documents and witness forms (ECF No. 42)

         Bell requests that the court provide him with “subpoena documents and witnesses forms.” CoreCivic and McMurtrey respond that Bell's one-sentence motion should be denied because it is vague and does not specify whom he intends to subpoena or what documents or information he needs.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas, which are the mechanism for obtaining discovery and testimony from non-parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. “The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3); Trevino v. Dotson, 2:15-cv-05373-PJH, 2017 WL 2224833 at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2017) (stating that the clerk of court must issue Rule 45 subpoenas for pro se litigants).

         Although the motion is somewhat unclear, the court understands Bell to be requesting form subpoenas for a civil case, e.g., form AO 88, Subpoena to Appear and testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action; form AO 88A, Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action; and form AO 88B, Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of a Premises in a Civil Action. The court will grant Bell's motion and order the clerk of court to send him copies of the subpoena forms for civil cases for his reference. Bell is advised, however, that because he is proceeding pro se and is not authorized to practice law and is not an officer of the court, he is not authorized to sign and issue a subpoena. Thus, to the extent Bell seeks to issue any subpoenas, he must request the court's permission and if his request is granted, the court will order the clerk to issue the subpoenas.

         II. Motion to extend time to file discovery motions (ECF No. 45)

         CoreCivic and McMurtrey request a 30-day extension of the deadline to file discovery motions, arguing they are attempting to resolve various discovery disputes with Bell without court intervention. CoreCivic and McMurtrey's attorney represents that before filing the motion to extend time, she sent two letters to Bell regarding the disputed discovery responses, but that the meet-and-confer process has been slowed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.