Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00524/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00524-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

JOHNNY C. THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LEWIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00524-EPG-PC

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND THAT THE

ACTION PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF=S 

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE CLAIM AS 

FOR JOHN DOE DEFENDANT 

(ECF. NO. 12)

ORDER THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED

ORDER REQUIRING IDENTIFICATION OF 

DOE DEFENDANT WITHIN 90 DAYS

Johnny C. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his initial 

complaint on April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On October 6, 2016, this Court issued a screening 

order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim against 

defendant John Doe, unknown surgeon at KVSP, for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 13.) The Court also found that Plaintiff 

failed to sate any other cognizable claims. (Id.)

\\\

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 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

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is 

willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, subject to an order that 

the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. (Id.) On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the John Doe 

Defendant. (ECF No. 14.) 

Plaintiff also notified the Court that although he believes he may have learned of the 

name of the John Doe defendant, he needs additional time to confirm the name. (Id.) 

Accordingly, service of the First Amended Complaint is not appropriate at this time because 

the John Doe defendant has not yet been identified.

The Court will allow Plaintiff sixty (90) days to identify the John Doe defendant.1 In 

order to identify the John Doe defendant, Plaintiff has leave to request issuance of any third 

party subpoenas, including on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”). 

To issue a subpoena on the CDCR, or any other third-parties, Plaintiff must file a 

request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum with the Court. If the Court approves the 

request, it may issue Plaintiff a subpoena duces tecum, commanding the production of 

documents from a non-party, and may command service of the subpoena by the United States 

Marshal Service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). 

Once the John Doe defendant is identified, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended 

Complaint that substitutes the name of the John Doe defendant with the name of the actual 

defendant. Failure to follow these instructions with result in dismissal of this case.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action proceeds only against the John Doe defendant, unknown surgeon at 

KVSP, on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim;

2. All remaining claims and Defendants be dismissed from this action; and

 

1

If Plaintiff is unable to identify the John Doe defendant within 90 days despite diligent efforts, Plaintiff 

may file a motion for extension of time requesting additional time for good cause.

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 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

3. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within 90 days that replaces the 

name of the John Doe defendant with the name of the actual defendant.

4. Plaintiff has leave to conduct discovery, including requesting third party 

subpoenas, to ascertain the identity of the John Doe defendant.

5. Failure to file an amended complaint identifying the John Doe defendant within

90 days will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00524-ADA-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3