Kory Armes v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
18
ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Early Discovery, without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/27/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KORY ARMES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
1:16-cv-01847-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY
DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 16.)
vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
22
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
23
November 29, 2016.
24
dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On
25
March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 17.)
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
(ECF No. 1.)
On September 15, 2017, the court issued an order
26
On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to assist him in identifying a
27
Doe Defendant. (ECF No. 16.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for leave to
28
conduct early discovery to identify a Doe Defendant.
1
1
II.
REQUEST TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
2
In a civil rights action brought by a plaintiff without the assistance of counsel, early
3
discovery is available in certain circumstances. For example, the Ninth Circuit has held,
4
“‘[W]here the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint,
5
the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
6
defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the
7
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160,
8
1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). In
9
Gillespie, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action against several U.S.
10
Marshals, prison officials, and prison guards. However, the complaint did not name all of the
11
defendants. Instead, the plaintiff identified the unknown defendants as “John Doe” and “filed
12
interrogatories requesting from the named defendants the names and addresses of the [unnamed
13
defendants].”
14
discovery and dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the “district
15
court abused its discretion in not permitting the discovery sought by the [prisoner] ... [as][i]t
16
was very likely that the answers to the interrogatories would have disclosed the identities of the
17
‘John Doe’ defendants.” Id. at 643.
Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642–43.
The district court denied the request for
18
The facts in the present case are distinguishable from those in Gillespie.
19
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was just filed and awaits the court’s screening under 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The case shall not go forward until the court has screened Plaintiff’s First
21
Amended Complaint and determined that it states cognizable claims against one or more of the
22
defendants. At this stage of the proceedings, it is possible that the complaint will be dismissed
23
during the screening stage on grounds entirely unrelated to identification of the defendants.
24
The court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after
25
the court has screened the complaint and found cognizable claims for relief. Thus, Plaintiff’s
26
motion for discovery is premature and shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the
27
motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
28
///
2
Here,
1
2
3
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to conduct
early discovery, filed on March 21, 2018, is DENIED as premature, without prejudice.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 27, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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?