Nixon v. Doe et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend re 1 Complaint ; denying 14 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall have 30 days in which to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/11/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-370-FDW
CHASTIS NIXON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend
Complaint/Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 14).
As to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff shall
have up to and including thirty days to file an Amended Complaint. However, the Court will
grant no further extensions of time.
As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, Plaintiff asks this Court “to compel
discovery allowing him a chance to gather facts supporting his complaint” and Plaintiff asks the
Court “how do I compel discovery to try and secure specific names the court requested?” (Doc.
No. 14 at1). First, as to Plaintiff’s motion for an order from this Court compelling discovery so
that Plaintiff can “gather facts supporting his complaint,” discovery does not commence until a
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan is entered. Local Civ. R. 16.1(F). Moreover, when
filing a civil action, all that is required in the Complaint itself is a short and plain statement
showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should have already
have in his own knowledge the facts that led to his alleged claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request
1

to conduct discovery before he files an Amended Complaint is denied.
Next, as to Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling discovery to obtain the names of
various persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, as the Court explained in
a prior order, Plaintiff is entitled to limited discovery to determine the names of individual
Defendants only if he can show the Court that the discovery will likely reveal the names of the
persons who allegedly violated his rights. See (Chidi Njoku v. Unknown Special Unit Staff, 217
F.3d 840 (4th Cir. 2000) (“The designation of a John Doe defendant is generally not favored in
the federal courts; it is appropriate only when the identity of the alleged defendant is not known
at the time the complaint is filed and the plaintiff is likely to be able to identify the defendant
after further discovery.”). Plaintiff has not met this burden in his pending motion. Once Plaintiff
files an Amended Complaint, the Court may reconsider Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery
to obtain the names of the individual Defendants, but only if Plaintiff can meet his burden of
showing that the discovery will likely reveal the names of the persons who allegedly violated his
rights.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint, (Doc. No. 14), is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have thirty days in which to file an Amended
Complaint. To the extent that Plaintiff brings a separate motion to compel
discovery, the motion is DENIED.

2.

In accordance with Plaintiff’s request, the Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail
Plaintiff a copy of his original Complaint in this matter.

Signed: March 11, 2016

2