Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01883-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Defendant
Mikeal Stine
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKEAL STINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01883-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO:

(1) DISCHARGE ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE (ECF No. 13);

(2) ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON 

COGNIZABLE FIRST AND EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN 

DOES 1 AND 2;

(3) DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; AND

(4) REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND 

WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS 

WHETHER FURTHER DISCOVERY IS 

REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY DOE 

DEFENDANTS

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal 

Case 1:13-cv-01883-AWI-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

On December 30, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

and concluded that the factual allegations stated cognizable First and Eighth 

Amendment claims against John Does 1 and 2. (ECF No. 7.) Noting, however, that the 

case could not proceed against these Defendants until they were identified, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a 

request for subpoenas and alternatively asked to identify Does 1 and 2 as Mr. Estrada 

and Jesus Valero, respectively. (ECF No. 11.) 

The Court subsequently concluded that dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint was in 

error. Plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to identify Does 1 and 2, and also 

should have been given an opportunity to amend claims found not to be cognizable or to 

advise the Court whether he desired to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (ECF No. 

12.) The Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to so advise the Court. The Court denied 

Plaintiff’s request to identify Does 1 and 2 as Estrada and Valero on the ground that 

Plaintiff offered no factual allegations to support such substitution. The Court stated it 

would consider the possibility of limited discovery upon receiving Plaintiff’s election. (Id.)

Plaintiff did not timely respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, on November 18, 

2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed 

for failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff responded to the order to 

show cause, stating his intent to proceed only on his cognizable claims against Does 1 

and 2. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff also requested that he be sent a copy of the first amended 

complaint. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

Based on Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, the Court will 

recommend that the order to show cause be discharged.

Additionally, based on the Court’s prior screening order and Plaintiff’s election to 

proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable, the Court will recommend that the 

action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant 

Case 1:13-cv-01883-AWI-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Does 1 and 2, and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed.

It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff presently has a good faith basis to 

support substitution of Estrada and Valero for Does 1 and 2, respectively. Accordingly, 

the Court will recommend that Plaintiff advise the Court within forty-five (45) days of the 

order adopting these findings and recommendations whether he is in possession of such 

facts or whether further discovery is required. If further discovery is required, Plaintiff 

must advise the Court of the information he wishes to subpoena and his basis for 

believing such a subpoena will assist in identifying the Doe Defendants.

1

The Court notes that the Bureau of Prisons has made a special appearance in 

this action. (ECF No. 15.) Although BOP is not before the Court for this purpose, the 

Court nonetheless requests BOP’s assistance in providing Plaintiff the information he 

seeks absent a subpoena, to the extent BOP is willing and able to do so.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 13) be DISCHARGED;

2. The Clerk’s Office be directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the first amended 

complaint (ECF No. 5);

3. The action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for First and Eighth 

Amendment violations against Defendant Does 1 and 2;

4. All other claims asserted in the first amended complaint and all other 

Defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice; and

5. Plaintiff be required to advise the Court within forty-five (45) days of the order 

adopting these findings and recommendations whether he is able to allege 

true facts to support substitution of Estrada and Valero for Does 1 and 2, 

respectively, or whether further discovery is required.

 

1

Plaintiff previously requested to subpoena a staff roster listing the names of the SIA and SIS Lieutenant 

present at USP-Atwater on July 31, 2012, but did not explain the basis for this request. (ECF No. 11.)

Case 1:13-cv-01883-AWI-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, any party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01883-AWI-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 4