Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01792/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01792-2/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

Lawrence V. Clinkscale, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

C.O. Brown, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1792-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Lawrence V. Clinkscale, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Special Management Unit I (SMUI), in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On October 28, 2011, the Court

ordered service of the Complaint on Defendant Brown. (Doc. 6.) In the same Order, the

Clerk of Court was ordered to issue subpoenas in blank to Plaintiff for use to discover the

identities of three fictitiously-named Defendants. (Id. at 10.) Subsequently, Plaintiff

returned two subpoenas addressed to the Warden of the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman and the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. (Doc. 8.) In the

subpoenas, Plaintiff incorrectly directed the Warden and Director, respectively, to produce

requested documents to themselves. (Doc. 8.) 

As the Court previously stated, the Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is

unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity

through discovery to identify the unknown defendant, unless it is clear that discovery would

Case 2:11-cv-01792-RCB Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 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 -

not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti,

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Rather than order new subpoenas to be issued to Plaintiff

by the Clerk of Court, the Court will vacate the portions of its prior Order concerning the

Doe Defendants, doc. 6 at 10. 

Does I to III, named in Plaintiff's Complaint, will not be served at this time. Plaintiff

may use discovery processes to obtain the actual names of Does I to III. If Plaintiff discovers

the true identity of these fictitious parties through the discovery process, or otherwise, he may

seek leave of the Court to amend his complaint to name the individuals in place of

Defendants Doe I to III and effectuate service on those individuals.

Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

C. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit

an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply

may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

Case 2:11-cv-01792-RCB Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 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 -

D. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Withdrawing the reference from the Magistrate Judge as to the portion of the

October 28, 2011 Order concerning Defendants Doe I, Doe II, and Doe III, doc. 6 at 10. 

(2) The portion of the October 28, 2011 Order concerning Defendants Doe I, Doe

II, and Doe III is vacated. (Doc. 6 at 10.) 

Dated this 10 day of November, 2011. th

copies of all counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:11-cv-01792-RCB Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 3