(PC) Landis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

RICHARD HAROLD LANDIS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01490-KES-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE v. IDENTIFYING DOE DEFENDANT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR et al., INVESTIGATOR AND EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 19) Defendants. NINETY (90) DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Richard Harold Landis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2025, the Court ordered that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, correctional officers, for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 20.) I. Service of Doe Defendants At this time, the Court does not find service appropriate for Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 because the U.S. Marshal cannot serve a Doe Defendant. Therefore, before the Court orders the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, Plaintiff will be required to identify them with enough information to locate the defendants for service of process. Once Plaintiff identifies Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 for service, he should file a motion to substitute the identities of Defendant John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 in the first amended complaint. If the motion is granted, then the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. However, if Plaintiff fails to identify Defendant John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, then the unidentified defendants will be dismissed from this action. II. Request for Investigator and Extension of Time On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request that the Court order an investigator to assist him in obtaining the names of the doe defendants, correctional officers at California State Prison, Corcoran. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff indicates that he is housed in Chino, at the California Institution for Men, and cannot obtain the two officers’ names without this Court ordering an investigator. Plaintiff also requests the Court grant a 30-day extension of time to allow the investigator to obtain the names. (Id.) As to Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an investigator to obtain the names of Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 6.) However, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915; see also Snow v. Mar, 785 F. App’x 465, 466 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here is no statutory authorization for a court-appointed investigator for civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis.”); Davis v. Portillo, No. 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC), 2024 WL 1313043, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024 (“The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators.”); Davis v. Walker, No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB, 2024 WL 1463373, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2024) (concluding in forma pauperis statute does not authorize federal courts to spend public funds on investigators). Plaintiff's request to appoint an investigator and related extension of time will be denied. III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s request for investigator and extension of time (ECF No. 19) is denied. 2. Within ninety (90) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file a motion to substitute the identities of Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 that provides the Court with enough information to locate them for service of process; and 3. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of any unidentified defendant(s) from this action, without prejudice, for failure to serve with process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE