(PC)Sykes v. Avenal State Prison et al
Filing
16
ORDER granting Plaintiff 90-Days to identify Defendant, John Doe signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/24/2024. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TROY A. SYKES,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
NINETY DAYS TO IDENTIFY
DEFENDANT JOHN DOE
AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Troy A. Sykes is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
19
I.
20
Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of
21
confinement claim against Defendant John Doe, Avenal State Prison (ASP) Food Services Head
22
Manager. (See Docs. 14 & 15.)
INTRODUCTION
23
II.
24
Service on Doe Defendants
25
The United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants. Plaintiff will be required to
26
identify John Doe with enough information to locate the defendant for service of process. Plaintiff
27
will be given the “‘opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown (Doe) defendants.’”
28
Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013).
DISCUSSION
1
Although Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against John Doe, the ASP food services
2
manager, the Court will not require service on this defendant at this time. The Ninth Circuit has
3
held that where identity of a defendant is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff
4
should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify unknown defendants unless it is
5
clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on
6
other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v.
7
Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, discovery may uncover the identity of John
8
Doe, and Plaintiff’s first amended complaint may not be dismissed on other grounds. Thus,
9
Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to learn the identity of John Doe through limited
10
11
discovery.
If Plaintiff is able to identify John Doe by an actual name, he may submit a notice of
12
substitution that provides the actual name for Defendant John Doe and ask the Court to substitute
13
the individual’s name for the previous Doe defendant designation. If Plaintiff is unable to submit
14
a notice of substitution at this time, limited discovery is warranted.
15
Service of Subpoenas on Doe Defendants
16
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses subpoenas. Plaintiff is advised
17
the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff
18
is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required (Fed. R.
19
Civ. P. 45(b)), “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a
20
subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008
21
WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the
22
relevance of the information sought, as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in
23
providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45.
24
A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear
25
identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through
26
the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 2010
27
WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS
28
(PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were
2
1
not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to
2
comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991).
3
Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors.
4
Id.
5
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
6
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff ninety (90) days in which to discover the
7
name of Defendant John Doe, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute this defendant’s
8
actual name by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. If, within 90
9
days, Plaintiff fails to file a notice of substitution that provides the actual name of John Doe, the
10
Court will recommend dismissal, without prejudice, of John Doe.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
October 24, 2024
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?