West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Open Limited Discovery 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/2/11. Identifying Information due Within 120 Days. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GERALD A. WEST,

11
12

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

1:09-cv-01277-LJO-GBC (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO OPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY

v.
(ECF No. 31)

13
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
14
15

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DUE
WITHIN 120 DAYS

Defendants.
/

16
17
18
19

ORDER
Plaintiff Gerald A. West (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

20
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
21
22

Third Amended Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Does 1, 2, and 3 for

23

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.) Because Plaintiff

24

referred to pertinent Defendants as Does, on February 18, 2011, the Court ordered him to

25

provide further information to initiate service of process on these Defendants. (ECF No.

26

29.) On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff, who has since been transferred from that institution,

27

responded with each Doe’s place of employment, location upon Plaintiff’s arrival to the

1

institution, appropriate dates, and positions, but was unable to provide enough information

2

to effectuate service. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff then filed a Motion/Request Permission to

3

Engage in Discovery. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff states that he would like to engage in

4
5
6

discovery “for the purpose of gathering document, video tape, identifying individual and
material concerning this civil action.” (Id. at p. 1.)

7

The Court finds that good cause exists to open discovery for the limited purpose of

8

identifying Doe Defendants. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980)

9

(“the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown

10

defendants”); Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff is not

11
12
13

to engage in discovery for any other purpose other than to identify Defendant Does against
whom cognizable claims have been found.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16

Plaintiff’s request to engage in limited discovery to identify Doe Defendants
is GRANTED;

17

2.

Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of service of this Order to provide

18
the identifying information to the Court for service of process; and
19
3.

20

be dismissed without prejudice.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

If Plaintiff fails to provide this information within the 120 days, this action will

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
1j0bbc

May 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE