Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01806-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY BRADFORD CLARKE, CASE NO. CV-F-07-1806- LJO-DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISREGARD DOCUMENTS

vs.

CITY OF MADERA et al.,

Defendants.

 /

After this Court had signed the Order on defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24, January 24,

2008) (“Order on Motion to Dismiss”), but before it was docketed, Plaintiff Stanley B. Clarke (“Mr.

Clarke”) filed amended documents (Docs. 19-23) to attempt to substitute true names for Does 1-5. Mr.

Clarke filed five documents entitled: “Amendment Substituting True Name of Fictitious Defendant

pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §474.” For the following reasons, the Court DISREGARDS these

documents.

In its Order on Motion to Dismiss, this Court granted in full defendants’ motion to dismiss. The

Court dismissed Defendant City of Madera, because Mr. Clarke failed to allege an official policy or

custom that was the cause of his alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. Order, p. 6. The Court

dismissed the individual, unnamed defendants, because the Court found that no Constitutional violation

occurred and, therefore, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Order, p. 9. 

Mr. Clarke’s attempt to substitute the names of the defendants does not change this Court’s

Case 1:07-cv-01806-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 01/28/08 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

ruling. The named defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity, because there was no

Constitutional violation. See Order, pp. 6-9. Thus, the attempt to substitute the names of the defendants

is moot.

Further, Mr. Clarke filed his amended documents pursuant to rules of procedure not recognized,

generally, in this Court. This Court follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Clarke’s attempt

to file these documents was defective procedurally. 

Therefore, this Court orders as follows:

1. Documents 19-23 on this docket shall be DISREGARDED; and

2. The clerk of court SHALL NOT issue a summons to the individuals named in the

disregarded documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01806-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2