Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00129/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00129-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERRY WASHINGTON, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00129-AWI-SAB

ORDER STRIKING NOTICES OF 

ADDRESSES FOR SERVICE 

(ECF Nos. 55, 56)

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

On September 24, 2014, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order finding that 

Plaintiff stated a claim against an unidentified defendant for a 2014 incident in which he alleges an 

unknown sheriff deputy was deliberately indifferent to his requests to be moved due to threats from 

other inmates and for the claim, arising from the same incident, where the unknown deputy allowed 

an attack by inmates as retaliation for Plaintiff’s request for a grievance form, and all other claims 

and defendants were dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff was ordered to either 

inform the Court that he was willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable or to file an amended 

complaint. 

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wanted to proceed on the 

claims found to be cognizable in the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 50.) An order issued on 

December 23, 2014, providing Plaintiff with thirty days in which to provide information sufficient to 

identify the Doe defendant so the Court could order the initiation of service of process. (ECF No. 

Case 1:14-cv-00129-SAB Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

51.) Plaintiff filed two documents entitled “Addresses for Service” on January 20, 2015. (ECF Nos. 

54, 55.)

This action is proceeding only on the claims found to be cognizable in the September 24, 

2014 order. Plaintiff was ordered to file information to identify the Doe defendant that was 

involved in this 2014 incident. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff was also ordered to provide all Fresno 

County Jail inmate grievance forms related to this incident and was informed that failure to 

comply with the order shall result in dismissal of this action for failure to serve. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff’s current filings include the names of fourteen officers. (ECF No. 55, 56.) 

Additionally, the second document filed contains allegations regarding an incident that occurred 

on January 15, 2015. (ECF No. 56.) The Court has previously stricken unresponsive documents 

in this action in part for Plaintiff including new allegations unrelated to the claims proceeding in 

this action. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff is advised that this action is proceeding only against the 

unidentified officer involved in the 2014 incident identified in the September 24, 2014 order. 

Plaintiff has been ordered to provide the Court with information identifying this officer. 

Therefore, the documents filed on January 20, 2015 shall be stricken as being nonresponsive.

Plaintiff shall be provided with one final opportunity to comply with the December 23, 

2014 order. The Court cannot be any clearer that it has been with Plaintiff. The only claims that 

are being litigated in this action are for the 2014 incident in which he alleges an unknown sheriff 

deputy was deliberately indifferent to his requests to be moved due to threats from other inmates and 

for the claim, arising from the same incident, where the unknown deputy allowed the attack by 

inmates as retaliation for Plaintiff’s request for a grievance form. Plaintiff is ordered to provide the 

Court only with information regarding this officer. Any other information contained in a 

response that is not related to identification of this officer shall be deemed unresponsive and, due 

to Plaintiff’s history of noncompliance with court orders, the Court shall recommend this action 

be dismissed. Further, Plaintiff’s response must include all Fresno County Jail inmate grievance 

forms related to this incident or an explanation of why grievance forms are not being provided. (ECF 

No. 51 at 2.) 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00129-SAB Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s notices filed on January 20, 2015 are stricken from the record as being 

nonresponsive;

2. Within twenty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall send a 

written response to the court, providing the full name and current address of 

Defendant Doe for purposes of service in this action;

3. If Plaintiff is unable to provide full name and current address, he must supply 

sufficient alternate information, such as partial name, title, work assignments, work 

schedules, last known address, or other similar information to enable the United 

States Marshal and the Sheriff’s Department to identify and locate the Doe Defendant 

for service of process in this action;

4. Plaintiff shall provide all Fresno County Jail inmate grievance forms related to this 

incident or include an explanation as to why grievance forms are not being provided;

and

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00129-SAB Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 3