Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01462/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pedro E. Camacho,

Plaintiff,

vs.

City of San Luis, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1462-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's request to enter default (doc. 6), defendants' response

(doc. 10), plaintiff's reply (doc. 11), defendants' objection (doc. 12), defendants' supplemental

objection (doc. 13), and plaintiff's response to the objections (doc. 14).

Plaintiff named several fictitious defendants. The use of fictitious names is

disfavored, but is sometimes helpful where the identity of alleged defendants is unknown

prior to the filing of the complaint. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

A plaintiff may therefore file an action and use its discovery mechanisms to learn the actual

defendant's name. Id. Once the actual defendant is discovered, the plaintiff should amend

the complaint to name the actual defendant, and serve the defendant in accordance with Rule

4, Fed. R. Civ. P. However, "[t]he court will not permit use of the 'Doe' designation for a

defendant if the plaintiff's ignorance of the defendant's true identity is the result of willful

neglect or lack of reasonable inquiry." 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice

§ 10.02[2][d][i]; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Case 2:06-cv-01462-FJM Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 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 -

Here, plaintiff names as defendants Othon Luna, Chief of the San Luis Fire

Department; Jane Doe Luna, "solely in her capacity as a member of the Luna marital

community"; and various entities. First Amended Complaint at 2. Although plaintiff knew

or learned Jane Doe Luna's actual name, Estelle Luna, he did not move to amend the

complaint to include it. And he served her with a summons that named Jane Doe Luna,

rather than her actual name. Defendants City of San Luis and Othon Luna filed a timely

answer. Estella Luna filed an answer after receiving plaintiff's request for entry of default.

Plaintiff requests and vigorously argues that the clerk should enter default because

Estelle Luna's answer was tardy. The request is denied. All known defendants are

represented by the same counsel. Estelle Luna's name was not included in the original

answer due to the ambiguity caused by plaintiff's pleading practice. She is not actually

named in the complaint, and she is only fictitiously named by virtue of her marital

relationship with Othon Luna. This dispute has nothing to do with the merits of the action

and should have been resolved amicably by the parties without court intervention. This is

a woeful sign that plaintiff seeks to profit from legal gamesmanship rather than to justly

vindicate his rights. Plaintiff's counsel shall consult the terms of the Lawyer's Creed of

Professionalism of the State Bar of Arizona and shall not charge his client for services

associated with this unnecessary element of the litigation. And defendants are directed to

LRCiv 7.2, and reminded that the rules provide for a response and reply to a motion, and no

more.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's request for entry of default against Jane Doe

Luna (doc. 6). The clerk shall not enter default.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01462-FJM Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2