Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00958-13/pdf.json

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

---

1

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR DOE DEFENDANT

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

LAW

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

TERRY SINGLETON, State Bar No. 58316 

GERALD SINGLETON, State Bar No. 208783 

Singleton & Associates 

1950 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 

San Diego, California 92101 

Tel: (619) 239-2196 

Fax: (619) 702-5592 

geraldsingleton73@yahoo.com 

BEN ROSENFELD, State Bar No. 58316 

Law Office Of Dennis Cunningham

115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Tel: (415) 285-8091 

Fax: (415) 285-8092 

ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

RONALD LEMAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JILL BROWN, MAXENE PAYTON, and 

DOES 2 through 100, inclusive 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-07-958-SI 

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

TO AMEND TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME 

OF DEFENDANT CECIL FOR DOE 

DEFENDANT – WITHOUT OPPOSITION 

 Plaintiff, through counsel, hereby moves administratively under Local Rule 7-11 – 

without opposition by defendants – for leave to amend the Complaint to substitute Donald Cecil, 

a correctional officer employed at San Quentin State Prison, for Doe No. 2, and to allege Causes 

of Action One (Negligence) and Three (Battery) against Officer Cecil to the same extent and on 

the same terms as alleged against Officer Maxene Payton. In an email dated March 27, 2008, 

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 79 Filed 04/08/2008 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 84 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 3
2

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR DOE DEFENDANT

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

LAW

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

defense counsel (Christopher Young) stated: “I do not object to a Fifth Amended complaint 

substituting Officer Cecil for one of the Does.” 

 On March 25, 2008, three days before the close of the current deadline for completion of 

discovery, defendants produced Officer Cecil in response to both an individual witness 

subpoena, and two Rule 30(b)(6) “PMK” subpoenas, for his deposition. Officer Cecil testified 

that he, and he alone, was escorting plaintiff Lemas at the time of his fall. (Plaintiff had been 

seeking this information, in various ways, since the inception of the case.) 

 Prior to that, on November 26, 2007, on the eve of the previous close of discovery 

(November 30) – before the Court extended the deadline – Correctional Officer Abbot testified 

that in the moment after Mr. Lemas fell, he recalled seeing Officer Payton, and Officer Payton 

alone, standing over Lemas. Plaintiff then moved, by letter brief dated February 22, 2008 (Doc. 

# 60), to amend to add Officer Payton. Defendants did not oppose, and the Court granted 

plaintiff’s motion on March 10, 2008. 

 Notwithstanding plaintiff’s earlier efforts, defendants did not produce Officer Payton for 

deposition until March 25, 2008, whereupon she denied escorting Mr. Lemas. Only the day 

before, Officer Malone had corroborated the account that Officer Payton was the escorting 

officer. 

 Plaintiff deliberately refrains from attaching a Fifth Amended Complaint to this Motion, 

as several pending questions may affect the pleadings, including whether Officer Payton is also 

responsible or should be dismissed, along with defendants’ pending motion for reconsideration 

of their Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss a portion of the complaint. Therefore, rather than risk 

having to submit sequential amendments, plaintiff proposes waiting until these questions are 

resolved.

 However, based on Officer Cecil’s own testimony that he was escorting Mr. Lemas when 

he fell, and based on plaintiff’s need to propound written discovery to Officer Cecil (a subject of 

plaintiff’s pending discovery letter brief), plaintiff moves now for leave to amend to name 

Officer Cecil in order to serve him, obtain his answer, and complete discovery. 

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 79 Filed 04/08/2008 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 84 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 3
3

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR DOE DEFENDANT

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

LAW

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court (1) grant him leave to 

Amend to substitute Officer Donald Cecil for Doe No. 2; (2) deem Officer Cecil added as a 

defendant on the date the Court so rules; and (3) allow plaintiff to move to file an actual, Fifth 

Amended Complaint at a later time, pending resolution of other questions which may affect the 

pleadings. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

GERALD SINGLETON 

BEN ROSENFELD 

DATED: April 8, 2008 

By: s/ - Ben Rosenfeld

BEN ROSENFELD 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated:_______________________ _________________________________ 

HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 79 Filed 04/08/2008 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 84 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 3