Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE 

IDENTIFYING DOE DEFENDANT FOR 

SERVICE OF PROCESS OR SHOW CAUSE 

WHY DOE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 15)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and John Doe 1 for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 2020.

On September 1, 2021, the Court found service of the complaint appropriate and directed 

Plaintiff to provide the Court with written notice identifying Defendant John Doe 1 with enough 

information to locate the defendant for service of process. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s written 

notice identifying Defendant John Doe 1 was due on or before December 3, 2021. (Id.)

The remaining defendants filed an answer on December 6, 2021, (ECF No. 24), and the 

case was stayed and referred to post-screening alternative dispute resolution, (ECF No. 26). The 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 02/11/22 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

case did not settle. (ECF No. 40.)

The stay of this case has now been lifted, and as of the date of this order Plaintiff has not 

submitted written notice identifying Defendant John Doe 1 for service of process.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL:

a. File a motion to substitute the identify of John Doe 1 that provides the Court with 

enough information to locate the defendant for service of process; or

b. Show cause in writing why Defendant John Doe 1 should not be dismissed from 

this action for failure to prosecute; and

2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of Defendant John 

Doe 1 from this action, without prejudice, for failure to serve with process pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 2