Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-19/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

Doe defendants are not favored in the Ninth Circuit as a general policy. See Gillespie v. 1

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.1980); Velasquez v. Senko 643 F.Supp. 1172, 1180

(N.D.Cal.1986). However, situations arise, such as the present, where the identity of alleged

defendants will not 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 the identities, or that the complaint would be

dismissed on other grounds. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied,

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CLINTON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 05- 1600 LKK CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 3, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants John Doe Correctional Officer and Chief Medical Doctor John Doe. 

Process directed to defendants were returned unserved because “John Doe is insufficient

information.” Plaintiff must provide additional information to serve this defendant. Plaintiff 1

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 68 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 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

26 439 U.S. 970 (1978); see, Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406,

430-431 n.24 (9th Cir.1977); also, Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

n.13(1978).

shall promptly seek the identity of these defendants. Upon discovering the name of the “Doe”

defendant (or any of the doe defendants in plaintiff’s complaint), plaintiff must promptly file a

motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint identifying the

additional defendant or defendants. Plaintiff is cautioned that undue delay in discovering

defendants’ names and seeking leave to amend may result in the denial of leave to proceed

against these defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall promptly seek the identity of this doe defendant (and of all doe

defendants named in his complaint). 

2. Undue delay in discovering defendants’ names and seeking leave to amend 

may result in the denial of leave to proceed against these defendants. 

DATED: May 8, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 68 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2