Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

SUBSTITUTE DOE DEFENDANTS AND 

ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE 

(ECF No. 34, 36)

Plaintiff Cesario Medina is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that ISU officers arrived at his housing unit to 

interview him regarding a matter related to his criminal case. (ECF No. 1, at 4). During the 

process of removing him, the officers twisted his arm with force behind his back, which caused a 

break in his arm that had been surgically repaired and healed. (Id.) The case is now proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1–3, but only those 

ISU officers who were directly responsible for breaking Plaintiff’s arm. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Doe Defendants (ECF No. 34), in 

which Plaintiff seeks to substitute ISU Officers Anthony Arisco, F. Munoz, and Sgt. Case, as well 

as Addendum to Motion to Substitute (ECF No. 36), in which Plaintiff seeks to substitute 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 39 Filed 11/21/23 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

Anthony Arisco and Joe Luis. The Court also heard from the Plaintiff during November 16, 2023, 

telephonic conference. 

Based on Plaintiff’s motions and statements made during the hearing, for the reasons 

stated on the record, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motions to substitute Anthony Arisco and Joe 

Luis for Doe ISU Officers 1–3. 

However, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions as to F. Munoz and Sgt. Case because 

there are no pending claims for a failure to protect and they are not the Doe officers identified in 

the complaint for excessive force.

If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to include additional defendants and violations 

under the law as discussed above, he has 60 days to file a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is 

advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 

693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself without reference 

to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” 

refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in 

due course.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute and Addendum to Motion to Substitute (ECF Nos. 

34, 36) are granted in part and denied in part.

2. All references in the complaint to DOE ISU officers shall be substituted with Joe 

Luis and Anthony Arisco. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Defendant Joe Luis and Anthony Arisco. (ECF Nos. 

1, 6, 7, & 9).

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Doe ISU Officers 1-2 from the docket 

and add Joe Luis and Anthony Arisco.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a section 1983 civil rights

complaint form;

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 39 Filed 11/21/23 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

5. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, Plaintiff may file a motion to amend 

within 60 days from the date of this Order. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his 

complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended 

Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:22-cv-00764-EPG.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 39 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 3