Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02535/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02535-0/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

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANILO ARTURO VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U. S. MARSHALS, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-02535 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted in a separate written order. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify

any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 4
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 1

Plaintiff asserts that due to his injuries, he merits tolling of the statute of limitations. 

(Compl. at 3.) 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 2

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that during his arrest on or about September 14, 20091

, he was

brutally beaten by members of the U.S. Marshals Office and San Francisco Police

Department, and thereby permanently injured and suffered significant brain damage. 

(Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff claims that he did not resist arrest or provoke the beating. (Id.) 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir.

1996). 

However, Plaintiff fails to identify any Defendant by name, and rather states that

John Does #1 - #5 are San Francisco Police Officers and John Does #1 - #5 are U.S.

Marshals. (Compl. at 2.) Although the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not

favored in the Ninth Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980);

Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1968), situations may

arise where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a

complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through

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

uncover their identities or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See

Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642; Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal.

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 3

1986). Failure to afford the plaintiff such an opportunity is error. See Wakefield v.

Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999); Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967,

978 (9th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff an opportunity to amend to name

correct defendants). 

Because this action cannot proceed without any named Defendants upon which the

action can be served, Plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint

identifying at least one John Doe defendant. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the

court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page

and write in the case number for this action, Case No. C 15-02535 EJD (PR). Plaintiff

must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended

complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without

further notice to Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this

order to Plaintiff.

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

8/3/2015

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANILO ARTURO VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. MARSHALS, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV15-02535 EJD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Danilo Arturo Velasquez 14341-111

HAZELTON

U.S. PENITENTIARY

Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. BOX 2000

BRUCETON MILLS, WV 26525

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

8/3/2015 8/3/2015 /s/

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 4