Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 212

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Doe Defendants Should Not Be Dismissed From the Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/14/17: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GRISSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOE
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FROM THE ACTION

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 15, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it

20

stated the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s “heat-risk”

21

condition against Defendants Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom, and Does #1-10 (nurses); (2)

22

deliberate indifference against Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino arising from

23

the deprivation of Plaintiff’s pain medication; and (3) retaliation against Defendants Rients, Akanno,

24

Sauceda, Rufino and Ellstrom in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 47.)

25

The discovery and scheduling order in this action was entered on July 23, 2014, with the

26

deadline to file any amended pleading of January 23, 2015. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff did not move to

27

file an amended complaint to identify and substitute the Doe Defendants prior to the deadline to

28

amend the complaint.
1

On April 18, 2016, Defendants Grisson, Keiley, Rients and St. Lucia filed a motion for

1
2

summary judgment. (ECF No. 172.)

3

On May 18, 2016, Defendant Akanno filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 179.)

4

On November 1, 2016, Defendants Sauceda, Ellstrom and Rufino were dismissed from the

5

action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 211.)

6

In this instance, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to conduct discovery and to file an

7

amended complaint as to the identity of the “Doe” Defendants, yet he has failed to do and none of the

8

Doe Defendants have appeared. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to show cause within thirty (30)

9

days from the date of service of this order as to why these “Doe” Defendants should not be dismissed

10

from the action. The failure to respond to this order or show good cause will result in the dismissal of

11

all Doe Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 14, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2