Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00201/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00201-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

IRENE SANCHEZ, ALICIA MARINA )

ELIAS, AND REGINA SALINAS )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

TEHACHAPI CORRECTIONAL )

INSTITUTE and DOES 1 through )

100, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0201 AWI TAG

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs brought this action against the State of California (“California”), Tehachapi

Correctional Institute (“CCI”), and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiffs allege federal civil rights

violations and state law violations stemming from the death of Raymond Elias (“Elias”), while

Elias was incarcerated at CCI. The court has jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

On February 24, 2006, Defendant California and Defendant CCI filed a motion to

dismiss. On March 20, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. On April

14, 2006, the court dismissed California and CCI from this action. The court found that neither

Case 1:06-cv-00201-AWI-TAG Document 16 Filed 06/28/06 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

California nor CCI are “persons” who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the

court found California and CCI entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Finally, the court

found California and CCI immune from the state law claims pursuant to California Government

Code §§ 815 and 844.6. The court denied Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint concerning

California and CCI because there are no facts that Plaintiffs could allege that would state a claim

against California or CCI. However, the court recognized that dismissal of California and CCI

on immunity grounds did not result in a dismissal of this action. The complaint also named

Does 1 through 100 as Defendants. The court then granted Plaintiffs until June 9, 2006 to

amend the complaint to name the Doe Defendants. The court warned Plaintiffs that if they did

not file an amended complaint naming at least one Doe Defendant by June 9, 2006, the court

would issue an order to show cause why the claims against the Doe Defendants should not be

dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by June 9, 2006, did not name the Doe

Defendants by June 9, 2006, and did not request more time in which to determine the names of

the Doe Defendants by June 9, 2006.

DISCUSSION

In Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9 Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit held that the th

district court's dismissal of claims against named defendants does not by itself support the

dismissal of claims against doe defendants. Id. at 1163. Rather, the Plaintiff is entitled to conduct

discovery to attempt to ascertain the identity of the doe defendants. Id.; Gillespie v. Civiletti, 620

F.2d 637, 642 (9 Cir.1980). th

Since the complaint was filed on December 12, 2005, and removed to this court on March

22, 2006, Plaintiffs have had time to determine the identities of the Doe Defendants. Yet

Plaintiffs have not sought leave to substitute a named defendant in the place of any Doe

Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause (“OSC”) why their claims against the

Doe Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Case 1:06-cv-00201-AWI-TAG Document 16 Filed 06/28/06 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

Plaintiff shall file a response to this OSC by 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006. 

Plaintiffs are notified that if they fail to respond to this order, this action will be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A court may dismiss an action,

with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. 

See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE in writing by 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006, why this action

should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to name the Doe Defendants and prosecute

this action; and

2 Plaintiffs are FOREWARNED that failure to show cause by 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006,

will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00201-AWI-TAG Document 16 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3