Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS, CDCR 

#34318, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY AND/OR WAIVER OF 

SERVICE AND (2) EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATOIN OF 

THE COURT’S RECORD 

[ECF Nos. 42, 44] 

Presently before the Court are two motions brought by Plaintiff Doyle 

Wayne Davis (“Plaintiff”): first, a motion to compel discovery and/or waiver of 

service, in which Plaintiff seeks assistance in serving Defendants S. Bedane and 

John Doe “Jose,” and second, a motion for clarification of the court’s record. 

(See ECF Nos. 42, 44.) 

I. Service Upon Defendant Bedane 

On July 18, 2016, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of 

the Complaint and summons upon the named defendants as directed by Plaintiff 

on the USM Form 285s provided to him. (ECF No. 11.) On August 24, 2016, the 

summons upon Defendant Bedane was returned unexecuted as Bedane is no 

longer employed by at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”). (ECF 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 57 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

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

No. 21.) Plaintiff requests the issuance of an order directing Deputy Attorney 

General Christopher H. Findley, who currently represents twelve (12) defendants 

in this matter, to provide the current or last known address for Defendant 

Bedane. 

 “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to 

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint, and, having 

provided the necessary information to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not 

be penalized by having his or her action dismissed for failure to effectuate 

service.” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). So long as the 

prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 

marshal’s failure to effect service of process is automatically good cause within 

the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 

(9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 

483-85 (1995).1 Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently identified Defendant Bedane as a 

former Laboratory Technologist at Donovan. Thus, as long as the privacy of 

Defendant’s forwarding address can be preserved, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on 

the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendant Bedane on his behalf. See 

Puett, 912 F.2d at 275; see also Avery v. Allamby, 2015 WL 710695 (S.D. Cal. 

2015). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Deputy Attorney General Findley to 

provide the forwarding address for Defendant Bedane to the U.S. Marshal in a 

confidential memorandum indicating that the summons and complaint is to be 

delivered to the address specified in the memorandum. The Deputy Attorney 

General shall provide the U.S. Marshal with any such information on or before 

                                               

 1 Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint 

is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. 

But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service 

for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 57 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

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

December 30, 2016. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of any available 

address from the Deputy Attorney General, the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal 

to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and summons upon Defendant Bedane. 

All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to the 

Court’s July 18, 2016 Order directing service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). (ECF No. 11.) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of: 

(1) the Court’s July 18, 2016 Service Order (ECF No. 11); (2) this Order; (3) the 

Complaint, summons and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 to Deputy Attorney 

General Findley for purposes of re-attempting service as to Defendant Bedane. 

However, both the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of the U.S. Marshal 

are ORDERED to keep any address provided for Bedane strictly confidential. 

Thus, any address provided shall not appear on any U.S. Marshal Form 285, 

shall not be provided to Plaintiff, and shall not be made part of the Court’s 

record. If Deputy Attorney General Findley is not able to locate an address for 

Defendant Bedane, he shall file a Declaration with the Court to that effect by no 

later than January 6, 2017. 

II. Identity of Defendant John Doe “Jose”

 Plaintiff also seeks an order requiring Deputy Attorney General Findley to 

provide the complete identity of Defendant John Doe “Jose,” purportedly named 

as a defendant in the Complaint. (See ECF No. 1.) “As a general rule, the use 

of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 

F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir 1980). Where a defendant’s identity is unknown prior to 

the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 

discovery to identify the unknown defendant, unless it is clear that discovery 

would not uncover the identity or that the complaint would be dismissed on other 

grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 57 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16cv689 BEN (JMA) 

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

Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). In order to proceed to discovery, Plaintiff must first 

state a cognizable claim. Discovery has not yet been authorized in this case as 

there are three (3) motions to dismiss pending before the Court. If this case 

proceeds to discovery, Plaintiff may then attempt to ascertain the true identity of 

Defendant John Doe “Jose” and seek to amend his Complaint to name that 

defendant. 

 

III. Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Record

 Plaintiff observes that ECF No. 18, which consists of a Notice of Document 

Discrepancy, incorrectly identifies the document at issue as Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

Reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling Denying Motion to Exceed the Number of 

Requests for Admissions.” The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to correct the text of 

ECF No. 18 to accurately reflect the document to which it refers: Plaintiff’s 

Application for the Court to Reconsider Motion for Judicial Notice (see ECF No. 

19). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 15, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 57 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4