Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00602-3/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

TREVON R. KIRKLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00602-CDB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

90 DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO IDENTIFY 

JOHN DOE

Plaintiff Trevon R. Kirkland is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 13, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Following screening, in relevant 

part, the Court found Plaintiff states a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process violation 

against Defendant John Doe. (See Doc. 17.) 

The Court now addresses the issue of Plaintiff’s need to identify John Doe against whom 

the Fourteenth Amendment claim proceeds. 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant “John Doe #1” is employed at Kern Valley State Prison and is presently 

unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges John Doe refused to allow him to present evidence at a 

March 18, 2022, disciplinary hearing in violation of the procedural protections afforded by the 

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 10/01/24 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

Fourteenth Amendment. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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) (quotation and 

citation omitted). 

As previously noted, this action proceeds, in part, on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

due process claim against Defendant Doe. Although Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against 

John Doe, the Court will not require service at this time. The Ninth Circuit has held that where 

identity is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity 

through discovery to identify the 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, it is unclear whether discovery would uncover the identity of John Doe, 

nor it is clear that Plaintiff’s complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Thus, Plaintiff 

should be afforded an opportunity to discover the identity of John Doe through limited discovery. 

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns 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, at *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, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS 

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 10/01/24 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

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

were 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. 

Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff has learned the name of John Doe since filing his 

complaint, and/or does not require a subpoena to obtain the individual’s identity, Plaintiff shall 

file a notice of substitution with the Court, asking to substitute that individual’s actual name for 

“John Doe #1.” 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

name of 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 John Doe, the Court will 

recommend dismissal, without prejudice, of John Doe #1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 10/01/24 Page 3 of 3