Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00363/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Evan McCarrick Jerald,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Christopher Nanos, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-00363-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

The Plaintiff seeks a 60-day extension of time to file a substitution of parties for the 

Doe defendants named in the Complaint. In the screening Order, issued by the Court on 

September 6, 2024, Plaintiff was given 120 days to file the substitutions. Unfortunately, 

the Clerk of the Court sent only one service packet to the Plaintiff which resulted in 

significant delay in serving the Defendants and correspondingly delayed the appearance 

and responsive pleading from any Defendant, and discovery by Plaintiff of the identities of 

the named Doe Defendants. On January 7, 2024, Plaintiff served a Request for Production 

of Documents that includes requests to discern the identity of the Doe Defendants. As noted 

by Plaintiff, Rule 34(b)(2) affords the Defendants attorney 30 days to respond. Plaintiff 

asks for 60 days to compensate for anticipated delays.

Additionally, the record reflects that service has now been made on most of the 

Defendants, who have waived personal service, making responsive pleadings or motions 

due sometime in the first half of February 2024. As of yet, no Defendant has appeared in 

the case and discovery, including the Request for Production of Documents, is premature. 

Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 31 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Therefore, even the requested 60-day extension of time will be insufficient for Plaintiff to 

obtain the information he needs to determine the names of the Doe Defendant and file 

substitutions. The Court, therefore, directs Defendants’ attorney to simultaneously with 

filing responsive pleadings or motions to Plaintiff’s Complaint, she shall also provide the 

names, job titles, and identification numbers to the extent possible for all Pima County 

Adult Detention Center (PCADC) employees who participated in moving Plaintiff within 

the confines of the detention facility after the disciplinary infraction occurring on or about 

August 25, 2023, (Order (Doc. 8) at 5 (Does 1 and 2); who transported Plaintiff to the 

hospital on August 27, 2023, id. at 5-7 (Doe 3); who participated on the Administrative 

Segregation Committee that determination to not rescind the restrictions, subsequent to the 

August 29, 2023, disciplinary determination that the infraction was “unsubstantiated,” id. 

at 6, 8 (Does 4-7); from the medical unit, who performed a capillary refill test on his hands 

and feet on April 9, 2024, and examined him the next day, id. at 9-10 (Roes 1-3), and the 

nurse who processed his intake on or about March 19, 2024. If any persons were employees 

of PCADC subcontractors, Defendants’ attorney shall disclose any information available 

to Defendants for them.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of 

Substitution (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ attorney shall provide the 

identifying information for the Doe and Roe Defendants as explained above by February 

14, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by March 3, 2025, the Plaintiff shall file a 

Motion for Substitution to notice the proposed named Defendant substitutions for the Doe 

and Roe Defendants. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 31 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 3
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this 

Order to Pima County Attorney Rebecca O’Brien at the Pima County Attorney’s Office, 

32 N. Stone Ave., Tuc. AZ, 85701.

Dated this 16th day of January, 2025.

Case 4:24-cv-00363-CKJ Document 31 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 3