Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

(1) DEEMING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 10) AMENDED TO 

SUBSTITUTE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

SALVATORE IN PLACE OF JOHN DOE 2 

AS DEFENDANT;

(2) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO 

AMEND COURT RECORDS TO REFLECT 

SUBSTITUTION; AND

(3) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT 

SALVATORE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) The Attorney General made a special appearance on 

behalf of putative unnamed defendants. No other parties have appeared in the action.

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference claims against John Does 1 and 2. (ECF Nos. 10 & 

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 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

12.) The Court opened discovery for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe 

defendants. In relation to such discovery, the Court conducted a telephonic status 

conference at which the Attorney General’s office specially appeared. Following the 

hearing, Plaintiff was ordered to submit proof that he filed an administrative appeal 

concerning the conduct of Does 1 and 2. 

Plaintiff submitted the requested documents on December 2, 2015. (ECF No. 28.) 

As Plaintiff points out, his appeal documents reflect that Doe No. 2 appears to be one 

Correctional Officer Salvatore. Doe No. 1 was discussed in Plaintiff’s administrative 

appeal but was unnamed.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court will deem 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint amended to substitute Correctional Officer Salvatore 

in place of Doe No. 2. The Clerk of Court will be directed to send Plaintiff service 

documents to initiate service on Defendant Salvatore. Plaintiff is reminded that service 

will not be initiated on Doe No. 1 unless or until he has been named. Plaintiff may have a 

further opportunity to seek information concerning the identity of Doe No. 1 through 

discovery, if and when Defendant Salvatore appears in this action.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 10) is deemed amended to 

substitute Correctional Officer Salvatore in place of John Doe 2;

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to amend the court records to reflect this 

substitution;

3. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendant:

SALVATORE – Correctional Officer at Wasco State Prison;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet 

and a copy of the complaint filed March 2, 2015;

5. Within thirty (30) days of this order, Plaintiff shall complete and return to 

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 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 Court the notice of submission of documents along with the following 

documents:

a. One completed summons,

b. One completed USM-285 form for the Defendant listed above, and

c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed complaint filed March 2, 2015;

6. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

7. If Plaintiff fails to timely submit service documents in compliance with this 

order, the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3