Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 79

ORDER for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why His Claims Against John/Jane Does 1-10 Should Not be Dismissed Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/08/2021. Show Cause Response Due Within Forty-Five Days. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19
20
21

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY HIS CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN/JANE
DOES 1-10 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

BRANDON PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FORTY-FIVE
DAYS

16
17

Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why his claims against John/Jane Does 1-10
should not be dismissed without prejudice.
On July 8, 2019, the Court entered findings and recommendations recommending that this

22

action proceed on Plaintiff’s: (1) Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims against

23

Defendants Brandon Price, J. Corona, Jose Lopez (collectively “Defendants”), and John/Jane

24

Does 1-5; (2) First Amendment free exercise claim against Defendants Corona and Lopez; and

25

(3) First Amendment access to courts claim against John/Jane Does 6-10. (ECF No. 19.) The

26

Court recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.)

27

District Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order adopting the Court’s findings and

28

recommendations in full on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 23.)
1

1

On October 24, 2019, the Court entered an order authorizing service of the summons and

2

complaint on Defendants Price, Corona, and Lopez. (ECF No. 24.) This order advised Plaintiff

3

that Doe defendants cannot be served until Plaintiff has identified them and amended his

4

complaint to substitute named defendants in place of the Doe defendants. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was

5

also advised that he would be required to identify Doe defendants as the litigation proceeds. (Id.)

6
7
8
9

On April 30, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order which, among other things, advised the
parties that discovery was open. (ECF No. 43 at 1.)
This case has been pending since 2018 and, to date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion to
amend his complaint or otherwise identified the Doe defendants. Discovery has concluded and
Defendants Price, Corona, and Lopez have filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, in

10
light of the status of the case, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause in writing why
11
12
13
14
15

John/Jane Does 1-10 should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within forty-five (45) days from the date
of service of this order, Plaintiff shall respond in writing and show cause why John/Jane Does 110 should not be dismissed from this action. Failure to respond to this order will result in a
recommendation that John/Jane Does 1-10 be dismissed without prejudice.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 8, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2