Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00506-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF 

PARTIES

(Doc. 42)

Clerk of the Court to Terminate a Defendant

Plaintiff Paul Roberts is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Following screening of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, this action proceeds on the 

following claims: (a) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims 

against Defendants CIM Warden, Delgadillo, and Gilman (claim one); (b) Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claims against Defendants CIM Warden, Delgadillo, Farooq, Gilman, Lemus, 

and Torres (claim two); (c) Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants 

Gonzales and Pilkerton (claim three); (d) an equal protection violation against Defendant 

Pilkerton (claim three); (e) a due process violation against Defendant Pilkerton (claim three); (f) 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 

(claim four); and (g) an Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claim against Defendant Pilkerton

Case 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 4
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

(claim four). (See Doc. 25.) 

Following service of process,1on November 22, 2023, Defendants Houston,2 Gilman, 

Delgadillo, Lemus, Farooq, Torres, Pilkerton, and Gonzales filed a motion to partially dismiss 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff opposed (Doc. 36) and Defendants replied 

(Doc. 37). 

On August 1, 2024, the undersigned issued an Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days to 

Identify Defendant John Does. (Doc. 39.) 

On August 12, 2024, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Grant in 

Part, and Deny in Part, Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint. (Doc. 40.) Defendants filed objections on August 26, 2024. (Doc. 41.) The Findings 

and Recommendations remain pending before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. 

On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Substitution. (Doc. 42.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to substitute California State Prison, Corcoran correctional officers G.S. 

Covert for John Doe #1 and A. Parra for John Doe #2 in this action. (Doc. 42.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides:

(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the 

pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:

(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 

against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and 

if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons 

and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in 

defending on the merits; and

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been 

brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper party's 

identity.

//

1 Service of process regarding defendant John Does #1 and #2 has not yet been ordered. 

2 Defendant Houston was served as the warden at the California Institution for Men. (See Doc. 34, n.1.)

Case 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the 

defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the 

August 1, 2024, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify Defendant John Does did not 

require him to do so. (See Doc. 39.) 

A review of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint shows Plaintiff identifies John Does #1 

and #2 with sufficient facts concerning their involvement in the alleged excessive force at issue. 

(See Doc. 24 at 22-26 [discussion re Claim Four]3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the excessive 

force at issue—grabbing Plaintiff’s shirt and violently and repeatedly slamming their fists into 

Plaintiff’s shoulders in the absence of provocation—occurred on August 15, 2020, following a 

disciplinary hearing. (Id. at 22-23.) Thus, the filing of a second amended complaint to merely 

substitute the names of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 is unnecessary.

Accordingly, the first amended complaint will remain the operative complaint in this 

action and the Court will substitute John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 for the named individual 

defendant Plaintiff identifies: G. S. Covert and A. Parra, respectively. See, e.g., Edwards v. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:23-cv-01180-NODJ-SKO, 2024 

WL 774952, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024); Cantu v. Doe 1, No. 1:20-cv-00386-HBK, 2021 WL 

2822531, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021); Altheide v. Williams, No. 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 

2020 WL 42462 * 1 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2020) (similarly treating previously filed complaint as the 

operative complaint but substituting named-defendants for the John Doe Defendants). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to substitute John Does #1 and John Doe #2 (Doc. 42) is 

GRANTED; 

3 The Court notes Claim Four in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint involves an excessive force claim involving John 

Doe #1 and John Doe #2, now identified as G. S. Covert and A. Parra, as well as a related failure to intervene claim 

against Defendant Pilkerton. As specifically concerns Defendant Pilkerton, the undersigned previously recommended 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint involving this claim against Defendant Pilkerton 

be denied. (See Doc. 40 at 19-20.) And as noted above, the Findings and Recommendations issued August 12, 2024, 

remain pending before the assigned district judge. The Court will consider the propriety of severing any remaining 

claims involving the California Institute for Men (CIM) Defendants from those involving the California State Prison, 

Corcoran (CSP-COR) Defendants once the assigned district judge has issued his ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. 

Case 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to add G. S. Covert, correctional officer, and 

A. Parra, correctional officer, to the docket caption for this action; 

3. Limited discovery is now closed. The Court will issue a separate order regarding 

service of process of Defendants Covert and Parra in due course; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to terminate the “California Department 

of Corrections” as a defendant in this action and update the docket accordingly as 

Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint does not name the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 12/30/24 Page 4 of 4