Barnes v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detention Service Division et al

Filing 14

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Service on Doe Defendant is denied, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Identify John Doe is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOHN DEWAYNE BARNES,

8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:18-cv-00168-RFB-GWF
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT DETENTION SERVICE
DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants.

13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Service on Doe Defendant (ECF

14

No. 12), filed on February 21, 2019. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Identify John

15

Doe (ECF No. 13), filed on March 5, 2019.

16

On December 27, 2018, the Court issued its screening order and dismissed Defendants

17

Lombardo and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detention Service Division

18

(“LVMPD”). See ECF No. 3. The Court, however, held that Count I alleging due process based

19

on a property interest and Count II alleging due process based on a liberty interest will proceed

20

against Defendant John Doe #6453. Id. The Court further instructed the Clerk of the Court to issue

21

summons for Defendant Whetsel and deliver same to the U.S. Marshal for service. Id. Plaintiff

22

requests that the Court serve the doe defendant and to instruct the defendants to identify Defendant

23

“John Doe #6453.” Plaintiff represents that Defendant John Doe #6453 is an officer with LVMPD.

24

Generally, the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored. Gillespie v.

25

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, where the identity of alleged defendants

26

will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity

27

through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not

28

uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Id. See also
1

1

Cameron v. Cty. of Clark Nevada, 2018 WL 2304037, at *3 (D. Nev. May 21, 2018). Plaintiff,

2

therefore, is permitted to conduct limited pre-service discovery according to the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure to ascertain the true identity of the officer that is identified as John Doe #6453 in

4

his complaint. After the LVMPD has identified the doe defendant, Plaintiff may file a renewed

5

motion to direct service to the doe defendant through the U.S. Marshal’s Office. The Court,

6

therefore, denies Plaintiff’s motions according to the provisions herein. Accordingly,

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Service on Doe Defendant (ECF
No. 12) is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Identify John Doe (ECF No. 13)
is denied.
Dated this 28th day of March, 2019.

12
13
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2