Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-14/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT PLATA 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE 

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO 

EFFECTUATE SERVICE

(ECF No. 56)

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

AS A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT 

PLATA

(ECF No. 59)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 

2020.

On March 23, 2022, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendant Plata in this 

case under the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 60 Filed 05/09/22 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

California. (ECF No. 48.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant 

Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer; California State Prison – Corcoran; January 4, 2020.” (Id. at 

2.) On April 26, 2022, the Court received information that Defendant Plata could not be 

identified.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendant 

Plata should not be dismissed from this action for failure to provide sufficient information to 

effectuate service, and directed Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days. (ECF No. 56.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response, filed May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 59.) In 

his response, Plaintiff argues that as he is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, he cannot locate 

Defendant Plata on his own. While he has served discovery on the other named defendants, the 

Court has granted them a second extension of time to serve their discovery responses after new 

counsel was assigned. (See ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff states that the January 4, 2020 incident at 

issue in this action occurred in the 4A2R Rotunda and 4A2R/Left ICC Room, and references 

Appeal #5-20-00062. However, Plaintiff also asks that the Court wait until Defendants respond 

to his discovery requests before dismissing Defendant Plata, if this information is not sufficient 

identifying information. (ECF No. 59.)

Upon review of the filing, the Court finds it appropriate to construe the response as a 

motion for extension of time to provide additional identifying information for Defendant Plata, 

and finds that a response from Defendants is not necessary. The motion is deemed submitted. 

Local Rule 230(l).

In light of Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain identifying information for Defendant Plata, 

including submitting timely discovery requests to the other named defendants, the Court will 

discharge the order to show cause. However, because Plaintiff has already provided additional 

identifying information for Defendant Plata, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be 

denied, without prejudice. The Court finds that it will be a more efficient use of resources to 

attempt to serve Defendant Plata based on the new information Plaintiff provided. If service is 

again unsuccessful, Plaintiff may file a renewed request to provide additional information about 

Defendant Plata after he receives Defendants’ responses to his discovery responses.

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 60 Filed 05/09/22 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The April 27, 2022 order to show cause, (ECF No. 56), is DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, (ECF No. 59), is construed as a motion for 

extension of time;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 59), is DENIED, without prejudice; and

4. The Court will issue a separate order regarding E-Service of Defendant Plata.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 60 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3