Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00966-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY A. SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

NINETY DAYS TO IDENTIFY 

DEFENDANT JOHN DOE

Plaintiff Troy A. Sykes is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim against Defendant John Doe, Avenal State Prison (ASP) Food Services Head 

Manager. (See Docs. 14 & 15.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Service on Doe Defendants

The United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants. Plaintiff will be required to 

identify John Doe with enough information to locate the defendant for service of process. Plaintiff 

will be given the “‘opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown (Doe) defendants.’” 

Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 16 Filed 10/24/24 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

Although Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against John Doe, the ASP food services 

manager, the Court will not require service on this defendant at this time. The Ninth Circuit has 

held that where identity of a defendant is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff 

should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify unknown defendants unless it is 

clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 

other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. 

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, discovery may uncover the identity of John 

Doe, and Plaintiff’s first amended complaint may not be dismissed on other grounds. Thus, 

Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to learn the identity of John Doe through limited 

discovery. 

If Plaintiff is able to identify John Doe by an actual name, he may submit a notice of 

substitution that provides the actual name for Defendant John Doe and ask the Court to substitute 

the individual’s name for the previous Doe defendant designation. If Plaintiff is unable to submit 

a notice of substitution at this time, limited discovery is warranted. 

Service of Subpoenas on Doe Defendants

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses subpoenas. Plaintiff is advised 

the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff 

is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required (Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(b)), “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a 

subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 

WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the 

relevance of the information sought, as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in 

providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. 

A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear 

identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through 

the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 2010 

WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS 

(PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were 

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 16 Filed 10/24/24 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

not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to 

comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 

Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. 

Id. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff ninety (90) days in which to discover the 

name of Defendant John Doe, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute this defendant’s 

actual name by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. If, within 90 

days, Plaintiff fails to file a notice of substitution that provides the actual name of John Doe, the 

Court will recommend dismissal, without prejudice, of John Doe.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00966-JLT-SKO Document 16 Filed 10/24/24 Page 3 of 3