Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800-22/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

Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants R. 

Nicholas, A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Cootnz, 

M. Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yuberta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, 

Velasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for 

supervisory liability. In the Court’s screening order, it was also found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable 

claim for failure to intervene against Doe 1, and a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Does 1 through 5, and 7 through 

10. (ECF No. 23, at pp. 7-8.) 

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOES 1 

THROUGH 5, AND 7 THROUGH 10 SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THE ACTION

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 140 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendants Nicholas, A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. 

Valverde, D. Cootnz, M. Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yuberta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. 

Crouch, Pinkerton, Carrasco, and D. Zanchi have moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 123.) 

In this instance, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to conduct discovery and to file an 

amended complaint as to the identity of the “Doe” Defendants, yet he has failed to do. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is directed to show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order as to 

why these “Doe” Defendants should not be dismissed from the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 140 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 2