Recino v. Unknown

Filing 58

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Provide Written Notice Identifying Doe Defendants for Service of Process or SHOW CAUSE Why this Action should not be Dismissed; Show Cause Response due within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/11/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO R. RECINO, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE IDENTIFYING DOE DEFENDANTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Defendant. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Case No. 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM (PC) Plaintiff Roberto R. Recino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s third amended 19 complaint against two unknown correctional officers for failing to intercede as Plaintiff was 20 beaten by other inmates, and for delaying in obtaining medical treatment for him after the beating, 21 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 22 On July 27, 2016, the Court found service of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint 23 appropriate and directed Plaintiff to provide, within forty-five (45) days, a motion to substitute 24 the identities of the Doe Defendants or a status report indicating the actions he took to locate their 25 names. (ECF No. 33.) 26 Following a series of motions to compel and for issuance of a subpoena, on September 13, 27 2017, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum 28 directing the Warden of California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”), to produce any and 1 1 all medical reports relating to Plaintiff, from April 2004 to August 2004. (ECF No. 46.) The 2 subpoena was returned executed on September 20, 2017. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff failed to 3 communicate with the Court thereafter, and on April 17, 2018, the Court issued an order directing 4 Plaintiff to provide written notice identifying the Doe Defendants or to show cause why the Doe 5 Defendants should not be dismissed and this action closed. (ECF No. 49.) 6 On May 30, 2018, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending that the 7 Doe Defendants be dismissed and this action closed, without prejudice. (ECF No. 50.) The 8 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 9 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No objections were filed, 10 and the findings and recommendations were adopted on June 25, 2018. (ECF No. 51.) Judgment 11 was entered accordingly the same day. (ECF No. 52.) 12 On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case and requesting appointment 13 of counsel. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff stated that, following service of the subpoena duces tecum, 14 he never received a response from the Warden of CSP-Corcoran, the Court, or the Attorney 15 General’s Office regarding the requested documents. (Id.) The Court construed the motion to 16 reopen the case as a motion for reconsideration and granted the motion on August 13, 2018. 17 (ECF No. 54.) 18 The Court provided the Warden of CSP-Corcoran, or another representative of CDCR, an 19 opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion in the form of a short declaration. On September 10, 20 2018, D. McGuire, the Litigation Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 21 (“RJD”), filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 57.) 22 D. McGuire declares under penalty of perjury that, pursuant to the Court’s order, the 23 subpoena duces tecum was originally served on the Litigation Coordinator at California State 24 Prison, Corcoran. However, the subpoena was forwarded to RJD as that was where Plaintiff was 25 housed at the time, and therefore RJD was the appropriate custodian of Plaintiff’s medical 26 records. 27 28 In response to the subpoena D. McGuire obtained copies of the requested documents, which were then served on Plaintiff by Correctional Counselor S. Lopez. D. McGuire has 2 1 attached a copy of a CDCR 128-B Chrono, indicating that the requested documents were served 2 on Plaintiff on October 10, 2017. Plaintiff’s signature and CDC number appear on the final page 3 of the chrono. (ECF No. 57, p. 5.) 4 As the response from D. McGuire directly contradicts Plaintiff’s contention that he 5 received no response from CDCR following service of the subpoena, and Plaintiff has not 6 otherwise explained his failure to provide written notice identifying the two unknown correctional 7 officers for service of process, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 8 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall provide the 9 Court with written notice identifying Doe Defendants with enough information to locate 10 the defendants for service of process, or shall show cause in writing why this action 11 should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and 12 13 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 11, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?