Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SID LANDAU, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00815 AWI DLB PC

Plaintiff, ORDER CONCERNING DOE DEFENDANTS

vs.

W.T. VOSS, et al., (Doc. 34)

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Sid Landau, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court dismiss Does Defendants 1 thru 10. The Findings and Recommendations

were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On April 30, 2009, plaintiff filed an

Objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

Recommendations should not be adopted at this time. Although the use of Doe defendants is

generally disfavored, “‘the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 45 Filed 06/23/09 Page 1 of 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

2

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities . . . .’” 

Wakefiled v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) . Here, Plaintiff asks for more time to

determine the identities of the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff explains that when the Magistrate Judge

issued the order to show cause concerning the identities of the Doe Defendants, Plaintiff did not

obtain a copy of the court’s order. Based on Plaintiff’s need for discovery and the fact discovery

has now opened, the court will not dismiss the Doe Defendants at this time. Plaintiff is forewarned

that he must timely complete discovery and amend the complaint to name the Doe Defendants as

soon as their identities are determined.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. That the court respectfully declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendations, filed

April 14, 2009, at this time in light of the objections; and

2. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 45 Filed 06/23/09 Page 2 of 2