Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ransom v. Herrera, 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180511965 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 10, 2018
Latest Update: May 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: PAYMENT FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS (ECF NO. 123) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Leonard Ransom, Jr. ("Plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On February 13, 2018, the Court directed the United States Marshals Service ("the Marshal") to serve four subpoenas, and directed Plaintiff to pay the charges for service of the subpoenas. (ECF Nos. 95 & 113). The Marshal served all four subpoenas. (ECF No. 1
More

ORDER RE: PAYMENT FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS (ECF NO. 123)

Leonard Ransom, Jr. ("Plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 13, 2018, the Court directed the United States Marshals Service ("the Marshal") to serve four subpoenas, and directed Plaintiff to pay the charges for service of the subpoenas. (ECF Nos. 95 & 113). The Marshal served all four subpoenas. (ECF No. 118). The total charge for service of these subpoenas was $146.54. (See Id.).

Non-party Kern County District Attorney's Office ("KCDA") objected to the subpoena that was served on it. (ECF Nos. 116 & 120). Given the errors in the subpoena, the Court ordered that KCDA be personally served with a corrected subpoena. (ECF No. 123). The Court directed that Plaintiff pay for the corrected subpoena as well. (Id. at 3). The total charge for service of the second subpoena was $65.37. (ECF No. 124).

The Marshal has received payment from Plaintiff in the amount of $146.54 (see ECF Nos. 149 & 152), which was the amount owed for service of the first four subpoenas. As the second subpoena directed at KCDA had to be issued due to errors that were not Plaintiff's fault, the Court will not require Plaintiff to pay for service of that subpoena.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Paragraphs eight and nine of the order entered on March 2, 2018 (ECF No. 123, p. 3, ¶¶ 8-9), which required Plaintiff to pay for service of the second KCDA subpoena, are VACATED; and 2) Plaintiff is not required to pay for service of the second KCDA subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer