Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00164-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE DOE 

DEFENDANT FOR NAME OF ACTUAL 

DEFENDANT AT FAULT, AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 28)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ruben Herrera is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim 

against the Doe DPS officer or officers that fired non-lethal rounds against him on September 18, 

2011.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Doe defendant with the 

name of the actual defendant at fault, filed December 30, 2016. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff seeks 

leave to amend his complaint to substitute Officer Jacob Redding for one of the Doe officer or 

officers who fired non-lethal rounds against him on September 18, 2011.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 01/04/17 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

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party. “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 

delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id.

Considering the relevant factors here, leave to amend should be granted. Plaintiff’s 

motion attaches a December 2, 2016 letter from the Department of State Hospital’s Legal 

Services Division indicating that Plaintiff was provided Officer Jacob Redding’s name in 

response to his request for the identity of the ERT member who shot him on September 18, 

2011. (ECF No. 28, p. 5.) The Court further finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue 

delay, or futility. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a third amended complaint, within 

thirty (30) days, for the sole purpose of identifying Officer Jacob Redding as a Defendant. 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been granted leave to amend, he may not change the 

nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his third amended complaint. George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading,” Local Rule 220. Each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The third amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Third 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number (1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM), and be 

an original signed under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiff also states that he originally pleaded that there were three officers involved in 

the September 18, 2011 events, but he has only been able to obtain the name of one officer. 

Although Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to identify Officer Redding, he reserves the 

right to identify the other Doe officers, if the evidence discloses other defendants. The Court 

reminds Plaintiff that to the extent he names any Doe Defendant in his third amended complaint, 

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 01/04/17 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

the U. S. Marshal cannot serve such person until Plaintiff identifies the Doe Defendant with 

enough information to locate them for service of process. If Plaintiff fails to identify any other

Doe officers during the course of this action, they will be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to substitute a Doe defendant with the name of the actual 

defendant at fault, filed December 30, 2016. (ECF No. 28), is GRANTED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

Third Amended Complaint as discussed in this order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 3