(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)
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?