Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Edward James Pull, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a civil rights action alleging Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims against Deputy Todd and Jane Doe Nurse 1 at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility. Following screening, the court dismissed several defendants and claims, allowing the case to proceed only on the medical care claims against Todd and Jane Doe Nurse 1. On May 18, 2026, the court granted Pull 90 days to identify Jane Doe Nurse 1 through subpoena or other means and file a notice of substitution. Pull filed a motion for subpoena on July 17, 2026, which the court granted on July 22, directing the Clerk to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Kern Medical Center's Medical Records Department for the name of the nurse assigned to medication pass on April 30, 2018, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. in the D6 unit.
The United States Marshal served the subpoena on Sandra Reyes, Office Manager at Kern Medical Center, on July 30, 2026. When Pull had not received responsive documents by late September, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on September 30, 2026, directing Pull to show cause why Jane Doe Nurse 1 should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the May 18 identification order. Pull responded on October 15, 2026, stating he had received no information from Kern Medical Center and requesting the court hold the Medical Center Manager in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena.
The Court’s Holding
The court discharged the OSC directed at Pull, given his written response demonstrating he had not received the subpoenaed information. The court then exercised its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) to order Kern Medical Center, its Medical Records Department, and/or Office Manager Sandra Reyes to respond by November 3, 2026, either by providing documents responsive to the subpoena or explaining why compliance is not required. The court cited Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that civil contempt sanctions may be imposed to compel obedience to a court order, and that the minimum sanction necessary to obtain compliance should be imposed. The Clerk of Court was directed to serve this order and the original subpoena order on Kern Medical Center and Sandra Reyes at their Bakersfield address.
The court warned that failure to comply with this order may subject Kern Medical Center to a finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions. The ruling reflects the court's recognition that Pull, as a pro se prisoner litigant, cannot compel a non-party's compliance with a subpoena without judicial intervention, and that the proper target of enforcement is the entity that was served and failed to respond. The court's approach prioritizes obtaining the discovery needed to identify the Jane Doe defendant over dismissing the claim for the plaintiff's inability to secure third-party cooperation.
Key Takeaways
- The court discharged the order to show cause against the pro se plaintiff after he demonstrated the non-party medical center failed to respond to a properly served subpoena.
- The court ordered the non-party Kern Medical Center and its Office Manager to respond within 14 days with the subpoenaed records or a justification for non-compliance.
- Failure to comply with the court's order may result in a contempt finding and sanctions against the medical center.
- The court emphasized the principle that the minimum sanction necessary to obtain compliance should be imposed, citing Ninth Circuit precedent.
- The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the order on the medical center and its Office Manager to ensure proper notice.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the practical challenges pro se prisoner litigants face in identifying unknown defendants through third-party subpoenas, and the court's role in enforcing compliance when non-parties ignore discovery demands. By shifting the enforcement burden from the plaintiff to the court, the ruling protects the plaintiff's ability to pursue viable claims while maintaining the integrity of the discovery process. The decision also reinforces that non-parties served with Rule 45 subpoenas are subject to the court's contempt power for non-compliance, and that courts will impose escalating sanctions only after providing an opportunity to explain or cure the default.