Long v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al.
Filing
38
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 37 Request for Extension of Time to Identify Jane Doe; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss the 9 Case signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/19/2021. Referred to Judge Unassigned; Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Flores, E)
Case 1:17-cv-00898-NONE-JLT Document 38 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PHILLIP J. LONG,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
JANE DOE,
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00898-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE; FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS THE CASE
Defendant.
15
(Doc. 37)
16
14-DAY DEADLINE
17
18
19
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint on July 7, 2017. (Doc.
20
1.) The Court screened the complaint, the first amended complaint, and the second amended
21
complaint, finding that the action can proceed against a single defendant, Jane Doe, on an Eighth
22
Amendment medical indifference claim. (See Docs. 11, 12.) Despite discovery attempts, Plaintiff
23
has been unable to identify the Jane Doe defendant, and he requests an additional extension of
24
time to identify Jane Doe. (Doc. 37.) Upon consideration, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request
25
and RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS the case for failure to identify the Jane Doe
26
defendant.
27
28
On February 14, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff ninety days to identify Jane Doe. (Doc.
13.) Plaintiff was unable to comply, and on June 27, 2019, upon motion by the Plaintiff, the
Case 1:17-cv-00898-NONE-JLT Document 38 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 3
1
Court issued a motion for a subpoena directed to Jane Doe’s employer, Corizon Health, Inc.
2
(Docs. 20, 22.) Following service by the U.S. Marshal, Corizon Health, Inc., through its counsel,
3
Matthew M. Grigg, timely objected to the subpoena on the ground that it is “unintelligible”
4
because it does not provide enough information to identify Jane Doe. (See Doc. 25 at 8–9).
5
Considering that objection, on April 10, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a letter with additional
6
information to help with identification and requested a more detailed subpoena to serve on
7
Corizon Health. (Doc. 25.) The Court granted the motion and directed the United States Marshal
8
to serve an amended subpoena on Mr. Grigg. (Doc. 26.) The Court further ordered Plaintiff to
9
submit a notice with the Court following receipt of the documents identifying Jane Doe to enable
10
service on that defendant. Id.
11
On October 15, 2020, after Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court issued an order requiring
12
Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court
13
order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff filed a response, indicating that Mr. Grigg did
14
not provide Jane Doe’s identity, and Plaintiff requested assistance from the Court. (Doc. 29, 30.)
15
The Court entered an order to show cause directed to Mr. Grigg, requiring him to show cause
16
why contempt sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the amended
17
subpoena served on him. (Doc. 31.)
18
On January 29, 2021, Mr. Grigg filed a response, stating that he did respond to the
19
subpoena, but he had no responsive documents. (Doc. 32.) At his request, the Court issued an
20
order discharging the order to show cause, and it granted Plaintiff’s motion requesting a subpoena
21
to be served on the Litigation Coordinator at the Fresno County Jail. (Doc. 33.)
22
23
24
After a period of inactivity in this case, on June 9, 2021, the Court entered an order
directing Plaintiff to identify Jane Doe within fourteen days. (Doc. 35.)
On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff belatedly responded to the Order with the reply from the
25
custodian of the records of the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office dated February 22, 2021. (Doc.
26
37.) The records custodian indicated that the Sheriff’s Office did not have responsive documents
27
and referred Plaintiff back to Corizon Health as an independent contractor, which handles its own
28
employment and scheduling. (Id. at 3.)
2
Case 1:17-cv-00898-NONE-JLT Document 38 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 3
1
Plaintiff’s response, however, was not docketed until July 13, 2021. On the same day,
2
without knowing that Plaintiff had filed the response, this Court entered another order to show
3
cause. (Doc. 36.) In light of Plaintiff’s response that he mistakenly believed the Court had
4
received the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office letter, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED.
5
Plaintiff requests an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to name Jane Doe because of
6
“unforeseen circumstances” and delays with legal mail. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff does not, however,
7
propose another means of identifying the Defendant. The Court has assisted Plaintiff and afforded
8
Plaintiff discovery, to no avail. As this Court has previously advised, the Court cannot order
9
service on defendants who are unidentified. See Walker v. California, No. EDCV 21-419-JFW
10
(KK), 2021 WL 2106485, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2021); Williams v. Sabo, No. CV 20-1373-PA
11
(KK), 2020 WL 9071695, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020). This case has been pending for over
12
four years, and the operative complaint still has not been served on the remaining defendant.
13
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that an additional extension of time will advance this litigation.
14
Therefore, the court RECOMMENDS that the Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to
15
identify Jane Doe be DENIED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
16
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
17
Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of
18
service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
19
Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
20
Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
21
waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
22
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
July 19, 2021
_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?