Samuels v. Ahlin et al

Filing 81

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff and Defendant to Submit Additional Information Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Submit the Actual Names of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/26/2017. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG (PC)

DOUGAL SAMUELS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBMIT THE
ACTUAL NAMES OF THE FRESNO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF NO. 79)

12

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

13
14
15

Dougal Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2017, the

17

Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim

18

against Fresno County Board of Supervisors be dismissed, and that the County of Fresno’s

19

motion to quash service of process be granted. (ECF No. 74).

20

On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and

21

a request “for an extension of time in order to make proper service of defendants Fresno

22

County Board of Supervisor.” (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff asked for thirty days so that he could

23

identify the individual members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and substitute them

24

in place of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.

25

The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file additional objections to the findings and

26

recommendations. (ECF No. 76). The Court allowed Plaintiff to identify the defendants he

27

wants to substitute into the case and request that he be allowed to substitute them into the case

28

in his additional objections to the findings and recommendations.
1

1

On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “motion to submit the actual names of the Fresno

2

County Board of Supervisors” (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 79). This request appears to be

3

responsive to the order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which

4

found a claim against the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and which stated that “Samuels

5

is not barred from bringing suit against the members of the Fresno County Board of

6

Supervisors in their official capacity.” (ECF No. 22, p. 3). The Motion names five members of

7

the Board of Supervisors he would like to substitute into the case.

8

The County of Fresno did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Moreover, it is unclear if

9

Plaintiff is alleging that these five individuals are responsible for the relevant actions alleged in

10

the complaint.1 The Court seeks additional information to determine if these individuals are the

11

proper defendants in the hope of moving the case forward in the most efficient manner.

12

Therefore, the Court will give Plaintiff twenty-one days to clarify whether the

13

defendants he is attempting to add are current members of the Board of Supervisors, or if they

14

were members of the Board of Supervisors at the time of the relevant incidents alleged in the

15

complaint (or both).

16

The Court will also require a response from the County of Fresno to determine if these

17

individuals are the correct defendants in this case, or the names of the proper defendants.

18

Within twenty-one days, the County of Fresno shall also file a response stating whether it

19

objects to addition of the defendants named by Plaintiff. If the County does so object on the

20

basis that they are not the members at the time, the County of Fresno shall provide the names of

21

the members of the Board of Supervisors at the time of the relevant incidents alleged in the

22

complaint.2

23

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

24
25

1

It appears that they are the current members of the Board of Supervisors.
The Court recognizes that the County of Fresno has moved to quash the service of summons on
the basis that it was not named in the complaint and that the Board was also not properly named. The County of
Fresno thus may have an objection to the extent it is not a proper party to the suit. Note that if the County of
Fresno stands on such an objection, the Court reserves its right to open discovery including third party subpoenas
to gather the necessary information. The Court’s intention is to efficiently identify the defendants permitted by the
Ninth Circuit’s order and proceed with the case as efficiently as possible.
2

26
27
28

2

1

1.

2

whether the defendants he is attempting to add are current members of the Board of

3

Supervisors, or if they were members of the Board of Supervisors at the time of the

4

incidents alleged in the complaint (or both). Failure to comply with this order may

5

result in the Motion being denied; and

6

2.

7

to file a response stating whether it objects to naming the members of the Board of

8

Supervisors that Plaintiff is attempting to substitute. If the County of Fresno objects on

9

the basis that they were not the members of the Board at the relevant time, the County

10

of Fresno shall provide the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors at the

11

time of the relevant incidents alleged in the complaint or set forth its objection to

12

providing such names.

Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to clarify

The County of Fresno has twenty-one days from the date of service of this order

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3