Hamilton v. St. Charles, Missouri, City of, et al.

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kyle Hamilton shall promptly ascertain through appropriate discovery requests the identity of the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1); Estate of Rose nberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985); and file proof of service upon these defendants within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. Defendant Ci ty of St. Charles, Missouri shall cooperate with plaintiff in the discovery process. Upon learning the identity of the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants, plaintiff shall promptly seek leave of Court to amend his complaint to properly identify these tw o defendants. Failure to comply timely with this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs claims against any unserved defendants. Response to Court due by 11/7/2014.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/23/2014. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KYLE HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-1020 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on
June 3, 2014, naming the City of St. Charles, Missouri, John Doe, and Jane Doe as defendants. A
review of the Court file shows that only the City of St. Charles, Missouri was served and has entered
an appearance in this matter.
In general, it is impermissible to name fictitious parties as defendants. Phelps v. U.S. Federal
Government, 15 F.3d 735 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1114 (1994). “[A]n action may proceed
against a party whose name is unknown if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to permit
the identity of the party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery.” Estate of Rosenberg by
Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257
(8th Cir. 1985)). “If discovery identifies other persons who should be named as defendants, it will
be simple enough for plaintiff to add them by amendment, after properly securing leave of court.”
Id. In such a case, rather then dismissing a claim, a court should order the disclosure of the fictitious
party’s identity by other defendants named and served, or permit the plaintiff to identify the person
through discovery. Munz, 758 F.2d at 1257.

In this case, the complaint asserts claims against two unnamed police officers of the City of
St. Charles Police Department in their individual capacities. The complaint describes an encounter
plaintiff had with the two officers on or about August 16, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that the two
officers took his mobile device and deleted a video he had filmed of the two officers interacting with
a young woman. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the two officers regularly patrol a particular
area of St. Charles, and that while he recognizes the two officers, he does not know their names.
The Court concludes that the complaint’s allegations against the two police officers are
specific enough to permit their identity to be ascertained after reasonable discovery. Therefore, the
Court will permit plaintiff to attempt to identify these two officers through discovery rather than
dismissing the claims against the two officers at this time. After ascertaining the identity of the two
unknown defendants through discovery, plaintiff should promptly seek leave of Court to amend his
complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kyle Hamilton shall promptly ascertain through
appropriate discovery requests the identity of the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d)(1); Estate of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985)); and file proof of service upon these
defendants within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. Defendant City of St. Charles,
Missouri shall cooperate with plaintiff in the discovery process. Upon learning the identity of the
John Doe and Jane Doe defendants, plaintiff shall promptly seek leave of Court to amend his
complaint to properly identify these two defendants.

2

Failure to comply timely with this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal
without prejudice of plaintiff’s claims against any unserved defendants.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 23rd

day of September, 2014.

3