Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 DAUDA ILIYA, Case No. 24-cv-03720-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING SECOND 9 v. SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 11 Defendant.

12 13 On December 20, 2024, the Court granted Defendant United States Marshals Service’s 14 motion to dismiss. ECF No. 23. Although the Court granted leave to amend by January 21, 15 Plaintiff Dauda Iliya failed to respond. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause 16 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court 17 deadlines. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has now filed a response. ECF No. 25. The Court finds 18 Plaintiff has established good cause for his failure to comply with the January 21 deadline and 19 therefore DISCHARGES the show cause order. If he chooses to do so, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by February 27, 2025. 20 As part of his response, Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct discovery to identify the 21 individuals involved in the incidents alleged in the complaint. However, at the pleading stage, 22 “[i]f a plaintiff does not presently know facts that would tie each defendant to their unlawful 23 conduct, the plaintiff may proceed with ‘Doe pleading,’ and amend the complaint to add 24 Defendants once discovery clarifies their role.” Kim v. City of Belmont, 2018 WL 500269, at *6 25 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018) (citing Isakhanova v. Muniz, 2016 WL 362397, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26 29, 2016)). Therefore, if Plaintiff does not know which individuals took which specific actions 27 1 that he alleges violated his rights, he should allege Doe pleadings by stating “Doe [1, 2, etc.]” 2 || partook in specific alleged conduct. Id. 4 5 Dated: February 6, 2025 . LAA. 7 — THOMAS S. HIXSON 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28