CDCR

BACKGROUND

22 On February 25, 2025, the Court found that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated a 23 cognizable claim deliberate indifference to his safety against the unknown Doe Defendant at the 24 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”). (ECF No. 18.) The 25 Court allowed Plaintiff to issue a subpoena to SATF in order to identify the Doe Defendants 26 described in the operative complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff completed 27 and returned the subpoena. (ECF No. 19.) On February 25, 2025, the Court directed service of 28 the subpoena by the United States Marshal on the Litigation Coordinator at SATF providing a thirty-day response deadline, i.e. on or before March 27, 2025.1 (ECF No. 20.) The Court directed that any response and/or responsive documents be produced to Plaintiff at his address of record. (Id. at 2.) On March 27, 2205, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a response from the Litigation Coordinator at SATF, which was self-dated March 24, 2025. (ECF No. 22.) On April 1, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel because it was filed prior to the deadline for a 8 …