(PC) Lear v. Navarro et al

Filing 60

ORDER DISCHARGING 56 Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Plata Should Not be Dismissed from this Action for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service; ORDER Construing Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause as a Motion for Extension of Time; ORDER DENYING 59 without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Identify Defendant Plata, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/09/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. NAVARRO, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT PLATA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE (ECF No. 56) ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 16 17 18 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT PLATA (ECF No. 59) 19 20 21 Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 22 23 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on 24 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 25 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 26 2020. 27 28 On March 23, 2022, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendant Plata in this case under the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 1 1 California. (ECF No. 48.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant 2 Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer; California State Prison – Corcoran; January 4, 2020.” (Id. at 3 2.) On April 26, 2022, the Court received information that Defendant Plata could not be 4 identified. 5 Accordingly, on April 27, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendant 6 Plata should not be dismissed from this action for failure to provide sufficient information to 7 effectuate service, and directed Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days. (ECF No. 56.) 8 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response, filed May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 59.) In 9 his response, Plaintiff argues that as he is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, he cannot locate 10 Defendant Plata on his own. While he has served discovery on the other named defendants, the 11 Court has granted them a second extension of time to serve their discovery responses after new 12 counsel was assigned. (See ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff states that the January 4, 2020 incident at 13 issue in this action occurred in the 4A2R Rotunda and 4A2R/Left ICC Room, and references 14 Appeal #5-20-00062. However, Plaintiff also asks that the Court wait until Defendants respond 15 to his discovery requests before dismissing Defendant Plata, if this information is not sufficient 16 identifying information. (ECF No. 59.) 17 Upon review of the filing, the Court finds it appropriate to construe the response as a 18 motion for extension of time to provide additional identifying information for Defendant Plata, 19 and finds that a response from Defendants is not necessary. The motion is deemed submitted. 20 Local Rule 230(l). 21 In light of Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain identifying information for Defendant Plata, 22 including submitting timely discovery requests to the other named defendants, the Court will 23 discharge the order to show cause. However, because Plaintiff has already provided additional 24 identifying information for Defendant Plata, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be 25 denied, without prejudice. The Court finds that it will be a more efficient use of resources to 26 attempt to serve Defendant Plata based on the new information Plaintiff provided. If service is 27 again unsuccessful, Plaintiff may file a renewed request to provide additional information about 28 Defendant Plata after he receives Defendants’ responses to his discovery responses. 2 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The April 27, 2022 order to show cause, (ECF No. 56), is DISCHARGED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, (ECF No. 59), is construed as a motion for 4 extension of time; 5 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 59), is DENIED, without prejudice; and 6 4. The Court will issue a separate order regarding E-Service of Defendant Plata. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara May 9, 2022 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?