Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. )

)

)

OFFICER RUIZ, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-01264-OWW-NEW

(WMW)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO ADD FRESNO CITY

POLICE DEPARTMENT AS 

DOE DEFENDANT AND

REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT

(DOC. 15)

Plaintiff is proceed pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 

On March 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to add the Fresno City Police

Department as one of the Doe defendants in “both cases.” Plaintiff is informed initially that

a motion filed in this case can request relief only as to this case. Further, Plaintiff has not

named any Doe defendants in this case. Most importantly, the court has already determined,

in the order entered January 9, 2007, that service of the first amended complaint was

appropriate only on Officers Bishop and Ruiz. Nothing has changed to alter that finding.

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/02/07 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

27

28 2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to add the Fresno City Police Department as a defendant in

this case is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for service of the complaint on the Fresno

City Police Department is likewise DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2