Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN HERRERA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PAM AHLIN, et al., 

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00164-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EARLY 

DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 15.)

I. BACKGROUND

Ruben Herrera (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on February 6, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order 

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 9.) On May

14, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11.) On July 20, 2015, with leave 

of court, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.)

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion to certify the right to make service of 

summons on John Doe Defendants.” (Doc. 15.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a 

request for leave to conduct early discovery to identify Doe Defendants.

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. REQUEST TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY

In a civil rights action brought by a plaintiff without the assistance of counsel, early 

discovery is available in certain circumstances. For example, the Ninth Circuit has held, 

“‘[W]here the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, 

the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown 

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the 

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 

1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). In 

Gillespie, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action against several U.S. 

Marshals, prison officials, and prison guards. However, the complaint did not name all of the 

defendants. Instead, the plaintiff identified the unknown defendants as “John Doe” and “filed 

interrogatories requesting from the named defendants the names and addresses of the [unnamed 

defendants].” Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642–43. The district court denied the request for 

discovery and dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the “district 

court abused its discretion in not permitting the discovery sought by the [prisoner] ... [as][i]t 

was very likely that the answers to the interrogatories would have disclosed the identities of the 

‘John Doe’ defendants.” Id. at 643.

The facts in the present case are distinguishable from those in Gillespie. Here, 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was just filed and awaits the court’s screening under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The case shall not go forward until the court has screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint and determined that it states cognizable claims against one or more of the 

defendants. At this stage of the proceedings, it is possible that the complaint will be dismissed

during the screening stage on grounds entirely unrelated to identification of the defendants. 

The court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after 

the court has screened the complaint and found cognizable claims for relief. Thus, Plaintiff’s 

request for discovery is premature and shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the 

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to conduct 

early discovery, filed on July 20, 2015, is DENIED as premature, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3