Court Opinion

ID: 1001957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:03:34.261928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:20.885236
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PAULINUS CHIDI NJOKU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN SPECIAL UNIT STAFF,
                                                                       No. 99-7644
Special Housing Unit; JOHN FINELLO,
Warden of FCI-Estill; JOHN AND
JANE DOE, 1-5,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge;
Leonard D. Wexler, Senior District Judge,
sitting by designation.
(CA-96-300-9-23AJ)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: July 7, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Paulinus Chidi Njoku, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Paulinus Chidi Njoku appeals the district court's order awarding
him a judgment of $60,000 against five unnamed John Doe defen-
dants and dismissing the action as to an entity identified as the "Un-
known Special Housing Unit Staff" in Njoku's action filed pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, Njoku asks this court for an order affirm-
ing the judgment against the John Doe defendants and compelling
them to pay the $60,000 award. Njoku also claims that the district
court erred in dismissing the Unknown Special Housing Unit Staff.

First, we note that John Doe suits are permissible only against
"real, but unidentified, defendants." Schiff v. Kennedy, 691 F.2d 196,
197 (4th Cir. 1982). The designation of a John Doe defendant is gen-
erally not favored in the federal courts; it is appropriate only when the
identity of the alleged defendant is not known at the time the com-
plaint is filed and the plaintiff is likely to be able to identify the defen-
dant after further discovery. See Roper v. Grayson, 81 F.3d 124, 126
(10th Cir. 1996); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.
1980). "[I]f it does not appear that the true identity of an unnamed
party can be discovered through discovery or through intervention by
the court, the court could dismiss the action without prejudice." Schiff,
691 F.2d at 198 (footnote omitted); see also Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d
1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). Based on the above caselaw, we find that
there is no basis to permit a judgment against an unidentified John
Doe defendant to be sustained. We therefore vacate the district court's
order as to the $60,000 award against the five unnamed John Doe
defendants and remand with instructions for the court to afford Njoku
a reasonable opportunity to properly identify these defendants and for
further proceedings as appropriate. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir. 1978).1
_________________________________________________________________
1 We express no opinion as to whether Njoku will be able to meet the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) in order to amend his pleadings to
include the identified John Doe defendants.

                    2
We affirm the district court's order as to the dismissal of the entity
described as the Unknown Special Housing Unit Staff. Assuming that
Njoku's action against this defendant was intended to be a lawsuit
against the United States or an agency thereof, the district court cor-
rectly concluded that sovereign immunity bars such an action. See
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

                    3