The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00687 SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUBPOENAS (Doc. 10)
13 v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT
14 BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY ORDER (Doc. 11)
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
15 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Defendants. SCHEDULING ORDER AND ENTRY OF
16 EXHIBITS (Doc. 12)
17
18 Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
19 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
21 Plaintiff initiated this action on June 7, 2022, by filing his original complaint together with
22 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2.)
23 The Court issued its First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights
24 Case on June 7, 2022. (Doc. 4.) On June 9, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
25 in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.)
26 On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.)
27 On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a documents docketed as a Motion for Subpoena (Doc.
1 On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Demand for Scheduling Order,
2 Added Claim and Entry of Exhibit ‘E’ into Record, Demand for Scheduling Order, Entry of
3 Exhibits F, G. H, I, J, K into Case Record.” (Doc. 12.)
4 For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
5 II. DISCUSSION
6 A. Motion for Subpoenas (Doc. 10)
7 On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and accompanying
8 documents, seeking “video evidence” from body cameras worn by institutional staff at California
9 State Prison, Corcoran for a variety of dates, and the production of various records maintained by
10 the institution or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff
11 appears to have personally served Theresa Cisneros with the subpoena and its attachments on
12 August 10, 2022. (See Doc. 10 at 3 [Proof of Service].)
13 As an initial matter, Plaintiff was advised in this Court’s First Informational Order, issued
14 June 7, 2022, a “pro se plaintiff may not proceed with legal action against a governmental agency
15 or individual in this Court until the Court screens the pro se plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it
16 states a cognizable claim against named defendants.” (Doc. 4 at 3:20-22, emphasis added.) The
17 Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Until the
18 Court has completed screening, Plaintiff “may not proceed with legal action,” meaning Plaintiff
19 may not commence discovery or seek the issuance of subpoenas. This Court is one of the busiest
20 district courts in the nation. As also noted in the First Informational Order, “the Court has an
21 extremely large number of pro se plaintiff civil rights cases pending before it, and delay is
22 inevitable.” (Doc. 4 at 3:25-26.)
23 The discovery process will commence only after the Court has screened Plaintiff’s
24 complaint and has found it states a cognizable claim or claims against the named Defendants, and
25 after Defendants have been served with an operative complaint and filed a responsive pleading.
26 (See Doc. 4 at 4 [First Informational Order, sections “IV. Service of Documents” & “V.
27 Discovery.”) Because the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and no
1 motion for subpoenas is premature.
2 B. Motion for Court Order (Doc. 11)
3 While docketed as a “Motion for Court Order,” Plaintiff’s filing includes the phrase
4 “Special Appearance” on the first page, followed by a list of 14 names of entities or individuals.
5 (Doc. 11 at 1.) The heading on the second page reads:
6 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF Fed.R.Civ.P 60(a)(b)-MOTION TO
STRIKE AND CORRECT THE RECORD and BRIEF IN
7 SUPPORT OF Fed.R.Civ.P. PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY,
FRCP 18 JOINDER OF CLAIMS, FRCP 19 REQUIRED JOINDER
8 OF PARTIES, A Common Law Action brought under Article III of
the Constitution for the United States Trial by Jury Pursuant to the
9 7th Article of the Bill of Rights Endorsed Hereon.
10 (Doc. 11 at 2.) In the 35 plus pages that follow, Plaintiff includes arguments regarding the
11 “American Flag of Peace,” or “gold-fringed flag (id. at 2-3), references an “attached Truth
12 Affidavit” concerning a “Title of Registered Ownership and Registered Security number”
13 purportedly exempting Plaintiff from tax and levy (id. at 3-4), a “Plain Statement of the Facts”
14 (id. at 4-7), a Verification and Proof of Service by Mail (id. at 8), followed by further narrative
15 concerning an action pending in the Kings County Superior Court (id. at 9-13), another “Truth
16 Affidavit” (id at 14-18), “Exhibit ‘D’” (id at. 19-20) and “Exhibit ‘E’” (id. at 21-35), and yet
17 another “Truth Affidavit” followed by the phrase “In the Nature of Supplemental Rules for
18 Administrative and Maritime Claims Rules C(6)” (id. at 36-38).
19 Although it is far from clear based upon this filing, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order
20 from this Court in response, the request will be denied. As explained above, this Court is required
21 to screen Plaintiff’s complaint before the action proceeds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Until
22 screening has been conducted and completed, and until any named defendant is served with and
23 has responded to any operative complaint, this litigation will not proceed.
24 Plaintiff is also advised that this Court will not serve as a repository for Plaintiff's
25 evidence. (See Doc. 4 at 3:8-13 [First Informational Order, II. J. “The Court will not serve as a
26 repository for evidence. …].) Evidence should not be submitted to the Court until this action
27 reaches an appropriate stage in litigation for the submission of evidence, such as in response to a
1 and when this action reaches an appropriate stage in the litigation for the submission of evidence,
2 Plaintiff will not be able to refer to exhibits attached to this filing or motion as evidence.
3 Evidence must be submitted at the proper time and under the proper procedures. Attaching
4 exhibits to premature motions is not the proper procedure for admitting evidence for the purpose
5 of proving Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff is cautioned that improperly sending evidence to the
6 Court may result in the evidence being lost or destroyed. The Court will not return the exhibits to
7 Plaintiff unless Plaintiff provides a postage paid return envelope. See Local Rule 101.
8 C. Motion for Scheduling Order and Entry of Exhibits (Doc. 12)
9 In this motion filed September 6, 2022, Plaintiff moves for a scheduling order and for the
10 entry of exhibits. (Doc. 12.) The filing consists of a total of 161 pages. It makes reference to
11 sovereign citizen ideology1 and, to the degree the filing can be understood to seek an order to this
12 Court, it is premature.
13 Again, this Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s complaint before the action proceeds.
14 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Until screening has been conducted and completed, and until any
15 named defendant is served with and has responded to any operative complaint, this litigation will
16 not proceed. A discovery and scheduling order will issue only after screening, service of an
17 operative complaint, and filing of answers by the named Defendants. (See Doc. 4 at 4-5 [First
18 Informational Order, V. Discovery].)
19 CONCLUSION AND ORDER
20 Plaintiff is advised that until his first amended complaint is screened by the Court as
21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), motions seeking the issuance of subpoenas or discovery are
22 improper and premature. Moreover, as explained in the First Informational Order issued June 7,
23
1 Generally, sovereign citizens disclaim any authority by government authorities over them based on the
24
person's own purported sovereignty. See Vazquez v. California Highway Patrol, No. 2:15-CV-756-JAM-
EFB (PS), 2016 WL 232332, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2016) (explaining “sovereign citizen” ideology).
25
26 Courts across the country have uniformly rejected arguments based in sovereign citizen ideology as
“frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible.” Bland v. Warden, Case No. 2:21-cv-00518 TLN DB P, 2022 WL
27 1597730, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2022), citing Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1
(E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016) (citing cases collected in United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL
2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2012)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically identified
1 2022, discovery is conducted between the parties to the action and does not involve the Court
2 unless a party files a motion to compel. (See Doc. 4 at 4-5 [First Informational Order, V.
3 Discovery].) Finally, Plaintiff is further advised the undersigned carries a heavy prisoner civil
4 rights case docket and there are dozens of such cases pending screening. Plaintiff’s first amended
5 complaint will be screened in due course.
6 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7 1. Plaintiff’s August 15, 2022 filing docketed as a Motion for Subpoenas (Doc. 10) is
8 DENIED;
9 2. Plaintiff’s August 15, 2022 filing docketed as a Motion for Court Order (Doc. 11) is
10 DENIED; and
11 3. Plaintiff’s September 6, 2022 filing docketed as a Motion for Scheduling Order and
12 Entry of Exhibits is DENIED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 Dated: October 3, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27