Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Deputy Ramos as Defendant Doe 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 48 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/5/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BRIAN CAPUTO,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.

1:15-cv-01008-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SUBSTITUTE DEPUTY RAMOS AS
DEFENDANT DOE 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 48)

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et
al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12
13

Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

14

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s

15

Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) “on Plaintiff’s claims for violation of Plaintiff’s

16

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against Doe Defendant(s), for retaliation in violation

17

of the First Amendment against defendant Gonzalez, and for excessive force in violation of the

18

Fourteenth Amendment against defendant Gonzalez.” (ECF No. 44, p. 9). On June 29, 2017,

19

Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Deputy Ramos as Defendant Doe 1. (ECF No. 48).

20
21

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. Deputy Ramos does not appear to be
the Doe Defendant described in Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint.

22

As the Court explained in upholding a claim against the Doe Defendant, “Plaintiff has

23

alleged that he was placed in disciplinary isolation from May 4, 2016, through November 22,

24

2016. While this complaint is silent as to whether Plaintiff received a due process hearing prior

25

to being placed into disciplinary isolation, the Court will allow this claim to proceed. The more

26

difficult question is who is responsible for this violation. Plaintiff has not alleged that defendant

27
28

1

At the time of the incidents alleged in the original Complaint, Plaintiff was detained at Kern
County Jail. He is now incarcerated at the Lompoc U.S. Penitentiary.

1

Gonzalez was responsible for placing him in administrative segregation, and it does not appear

2

that a deputy would have that authority. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to allege any acts or

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

omissions by defendant Kern County Sherriff’s Office that led to the alleged deprivation of
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Therefore, the Court will allow this claim
to proceed only against Doe Defendant(s).” (ECF No. 44, p. 7).
Deputy Ramos does not appear to have anything to do with Plaintiff being put in
disciplinary isolation from May 4, 2016, through November 22, 2016. While Plaintiff does
mention that Deputy Ramos isolated Plaintiff, he alleges that the incident happened in 2015.
Additionally, it is not clear what form this isolation took.
Because Deputy Ramos does not appear to be the Doe Defendant(s) in the claim allowed
by the Court, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to substitute, without prejudice. If Deputy
Ramos was the person responsible for the 2016 disciplinary isolation incident, Plaintiff may file

12

another motion to substitute that lays out Deputy Ramos’s involvement and explains why he is

13
the Doe Defendant named in the complaint.
14
The Court notes that if Plaintiff wishes to add a claim to his complaint, he may file a
15
motion to amend his complaint. However, given the multiple amendments the Court has already
16
17
18

allowed, the Court is not inclined to grant further leave to amend.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to
substitute Deputy Ramos as Defendant Doe 1 is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
Dated:

July 5, 2017

/s/

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2