1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HANS MORALES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00171-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION 13 v. (Doc. 20) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff David Hans Morales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On July 31, 2024, the Court issued its Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. 21 (Doc. 18.) Specifically, the Court ordered that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment failure to protect claims, as asserted in the first amended complaint, against the 23 following individuals employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison: 24 a. John Doe, Warden 25 b. John Doe, Facility B Captain 26 c. John Doe, Facility B Lieutenant 27 d. John Doe, Facility B Sergeant 28 e. John Doe, Facility C Captain 1 f. John Doe, Facility C Lieutenant 2 g. John Doe, Facility C Sergeant 3 h. Correctional Officer Phillips 4 i. Correctional Officer Rodriguez 5 j. Correctional Officer Hernandez 6 k. O. Onyehe, and 7 l. Ifeoma Oghuehi 8 (See Doc. 18.) 9 On August 1, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify 10 Defendant John Does. (Doc. 19.) 11 On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Substitution, that 12 Identifies the Identities of the seven Doe Defendants by Name.” (Doc. 20.) 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Court’s August 1, 2024, Order 15 The Court’s order identified seven Doe Defendants referenced in Plaintiff’s first amended 16 complaint. (Doc. 19 at 1-2.) Plaintiff was “advised that the United States Marshal cannot serve 17 Doe defendants” and that Plaintiff would “be required to identify the seven John Doe 18 defendants ….” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was further advised that he was “not required to seek the 19 identities of the seven Doe defendants by way of limited discovery if he is able to identify those 20 individuals by other informal means.” (Id.) The Court indicated that assuming Plaintiff was able 21 to “identify the seven John Doe defendants by actual name, he may submit a notice of 22 substitution, providing the actual name for each Doe defendant, asking the Court to substitute the 23 individual’s name for the previous Doe defendant designation.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff was 24 provided with information concerning the Court’s procedures for issuing Rule 45 subpoenas. (Id. 25 at 3.) Finally, Plaintiff was granted 90 days within which to “file a notice of substitution if he is 26 presently able to identify the seven John Doe defendants, and/or to discover the names of the 27 seven John Doe defendants, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these defendants’ 28 actual names by filing a notice of substitution ….” (Id. at 4.) 1 Plaintiff’s Notice Filed October 7, 2024 2 Plaintiff’s notice identifies and seeks to substitute the following individuals in place of the 3 Doe Defendants: 4 a. Substitute Ron Godwin in place of “John Doe, Warden.” 5 b. Substitute R. Kuhn in place of “John Doe, Facility B Captain.” 6 c. Substitute D. A. Davis, Marquess III, M. Solis, A. A. Salas, J. Rios, J. A. 7 Teater, N. Greene, E. A. Molina, and I. Rios in place of “John Doe, Facility B 8 Lieutenant.” 9 d. Substitute J. M. Elizalde, C. V. Kerber, J. Montano, D. Cardenas, C. A. 10 Caldera, J. C. Black, Melendez Jr., and R. Ledesma, in place of “John Doe, 11 Facility B Sergeant.” 12 e. Substitute Fogal in place of “John Doe, Facility C Captain.” 13 f. Substitute E. A. Molina, L. D. Ybarra, T. D. Verbeek, A. R. Desfosses, J. L. 14 Martin, and J. Rios, in place of “John Doe, Facility C Lieutenant.” 15 g. Substitute J. M. Elizalde, C. V. Kerber, T. J. Ramos, N. Greene Jr., and A. M. 16 Davidson, in place of “John Doe, Facility C Sergeant.” 17 (See Doc. 20 at 2-4.) Plaintiff states he obtained these individuals’ names “through a ‘Request to 18 Inspect Public Records (CDCR 1432)[’] … requesting the names of Doe defendants Second and 19 Third Watch and their positions of 11/19/2020, 11/21/2020, 11/30/2020, 12/3/2020 and 20 12/10/2020.” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff contends “Second and Third Watch Doe defendants” on those 21 dates “played a major role” in approving or disapproving “all inmates moved in and out of their 22 facilities and housing units at the institution.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff submits he has provided “enough 23 information (names, positions, dates, and place of employment) to identify the identities of the 24 John Doe defendant(s) that the Court has Ordered” be identified. (Id. at 5-6.) If the Court requires 25 additional information to effect service of process, Plaintiff asks he be advised of same and be 26 permitted to conduct additional limited discovery according to Rules 34 and 45 of the Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff attaches two exhibits, encompassing approximately 28 51 pages. (Id. at 8-59.) The Court notes the majority of Exhibit A is illegible as the copies are too 1 dark to be read (see id. at 8-54); however, the last page of Exhibit A (id. at 55) identifies Ron 2 Godwin as the Acting Warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison in November 2020, Kuhn as 3 Facility B Captain in 2020, and Fogal as Facility Captain in 2020. Exhibit B includes a copy of 4 Plaintiff’s completed and signed CDCR 1432 Request to Inspect Public Records form (id. at 57- 5 58) and a completed CDCR 193 Trust Account Withdrawal Order form (id. at 59). 6 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Filed February 24, 2023 7 The Court has again reviewed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Although Plaintiff 8 refers to the Doe defendants in the singular for their position (i.e., “As the Facility B Captain, 9 Lieutenant, Sergeant …” [Doc. 13 at 7] and “[inmates] were authorized to be moved to Facility 10 B3 by Warden, Facility C Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant …” [id.]) and makes no mention of a 11 particular watch worked by any Doe defendant, liberally construed and affording Plaintiff the 12 benefit of doubt, the Court interprets the first amended complaint to make reference to any 13 unknown Doe defendant working either of the watches/shifts on the relevant dates (11/19/2020, 14 11/21/2020, 11/30/2020, 12/3/2020, 12/10/2020) identified by Plaintiff. (See Doc. 13 at 6-8.) 15 Analysis 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides: 17 (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 18 (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 19 against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons 20 and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 21 (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and 22 (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been 23 brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper party's identity. 24 25 Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the 26 defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the 27 August 1, 2024, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify Defendant John Does did not 28 require him to do so. (See Doc. 19.) 1 As noted above and liberally construed, a review of the first amended complaint shows 2 Plaintiff identifies the defendant John Does, with sufficient facts concerning their involvement in 3 the claims alleged. (Doc. 13.) Thus, the filing of a second amended complaint to merely substitute 4 the names of the John Doe defendants is unnecessary.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HANS MORALES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00171-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION 13 v. (Doc. 20) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff David Hans Morales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On July 31, 2024, the Court issued its Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. 21 (Doc. 18.) Specifically, the Court ordered that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment failure to protect claims, as asserted in the first amended complaint, against the 23 following individuals employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison: 24 a. John Doe, Warden 25 b. John Doe, Facility B Captain 26 c. John Doe, Facility B Lieutenant 27 d. John Doe, Facility B Sergeant 28 e. John Doe, Facility C Captain 1 f. John Doe, Facility C Lieutenant 2 g. John Doe, Facility C Sergeant 3 h. Correctional Officer Phillips 4 i. Correctional Officer Rodriguez 5 j. Correctional Officer Hernandez 6 k. O. Onyehe, and 7 l. Ifeoma Oghuehi 8 (See Doc. 18.) 9 On August 1, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify 10 Defendant John Does. (Doc. 19.) 11 On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Substitution, that 12 Identifies the Identities of the seven Doe Defendants by Name.” (Doc. 20.) 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Court’s August 1, 2024, Order 15 The Court’s order identified seven Doe Defendants referenced in Plaintiff’s first amended 16 complaint. (Doc. 19 at 1-2.) Plaintiff was “advised that the United States Marshal cannot serve 17 Doe defendants” and that Plaintiff would “be required to identify the seven John Doe 18 defendants ….” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was further advised that he was “not required to seek the 19 identities of the seven Doe defendants by way of limited discovery if he is able to identify those 20 individuals by other informal means.” (Id.) The Court indicated that assuming Plaintiff was able 21 to “identify the seven John Doe defendants by actual name, he may submit a notice of 22 substitution, providing the actual name for each Doe defendant, asking the Court to substitute the 23 individual’s name for the previous Doe defendant designation.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff was 24 provided with information concerning the Court’s procedures for issuing Rule 45 subpoenas. (Id. 25 at 3.) Finally, Plaintiff was granted 90 days within which to “file a notice of substitution if he is 26 presently able to identify the seven John Doe defendants, and/or to discover the names of the 27 seven John Doe defendants, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these defendants’ 28 actual names by filing a notice of substitution ….” (Id. at 4.) 1 Plaintiff’s Notice Filed October 7, 2024 2 Plaintiff’s notice identifies and seeks to substitute the following individuals in place of the 3 Doe Defendants: 4 a. Substitute Ron Godwin in place of “John Doe, Warden.” 5 b. Substitute R. Kuhn in place of “John Doe, Facility B Captain.” 6 c. Substitute D. A. Davis, Marquess III, M. Solis, A. A. Salas, J. Rios, J. A. 7 Teater, N. Greene, E. A. Molina, and I. Rios in place of “John Doe, Facility B 8 Lieutenant.” 9 d. Substitute J. M. Elizalde, C. V. Kerber, J. Montano, D. Cardenas, C. A. 10 Caldera, J. C. Black, Melendez Jr., and R. Ledesma, in place of “John Doe, 11 Facility B Sergeant.” 12 e. Substitute Fogal in place of “John Doe, Facility C Captain.” 13 f. Substitute E. A. Molina, L. D. Ybarra, T. D. Verbeek, A. R. Desfosses, J. L. 14 Martin, and J. Rios, in place of “John Doe, Facility C Lieutenant.” 15 g. Substitute J. M. Elizalde, C. V. Kerber, T. J. Ramos, N. Greene Jr., and A. M. 16 Davidson, in place of “John Doe, Facility C Sergeant.” 17 (See Doc. 20 at 2-4.) Plaintiff states he obtained these individuals’ names “through a ‘Request to 18 Inspect Public Records (CDCR 1432)[’] … requesting the names of Doe defendants Second and 19 Third Watch and their positions of 11/19/2020, 11/21/2020, 11/30/2020, 12/3/2020 and 20 12/10/2020.” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff contends “Second and Third Watch Doe defendants” on those 21 dates “played a major role” in approving or disapproving “all inmates moved in and out of their 22 facilities and housing units at the institution.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff submits he has provided “enough 23 information (names, positions, dates, and place of employment) to identify the identities of the 24 John Doe defendant(s) that the Court has Ordered” be identified. (Id. at 5-6.) If the Court requires 25 additional information to effect service of process, Plaintiff asks he be advised of same and be 26 permitted to conduct additional limited discovery according to Rules 34 and 45 of the Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff attaches two exhibits, encompassing approximately 28 51 pages. (Id. at 8-59.) The Court notes the majority of Exhibit A is illegible as the copies are too 1 dark to be read (see id. at 8-54); however, the last page of Exhibit A (id. at 55) identifies Ron 2 Godwin as the Acting Warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison in November 2020, Kuhn as 3 Facility B Captain in 2020, and Fogal as Facility Captain in 2020. Exhibit B includes a copy of 4 Plaintiff’s completed and signed CDCR 1432 Request to Inspect Public Records form (id. at 57- 5 58) and a completed CDCR 193 Trust Account Withdrawal Order form (id. at 59). 6 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Filed February 24, 2023 7 The Court has again reviewed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Although Plaintiff 8 refers to the Doe defendants in the singular for their position (i.e., “As the Facility B Captain, 9 Lieutenant, Sergeant …” [Doc. 13 at 7] and “[inmates] were authorized to be moved to Facility 10 B3 by Warden, Facility C Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant …” [id.]) and makes no mention of a 11 particular watch worked by any Doe defendant, liberally construed and affording Plaintiff the 12 benefit of doubt, the Court interprets the first amended complaint to make reference to any 13 unknown Doe defendant working either of the watches/shifts on the relevant dates (11/19/2020, 14 11/21/2020, 11/30/2020, 12/3/2020, 12/10/2020) identified by Plaintiff. (See Doc. 13 at 6-8.) 15 Analysis 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides: 17 (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 18 (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 19 against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons 20 and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 21 (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and 22 (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been 23 brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper party's identity. 24 25 Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the 26 defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the 27 August 1, 2024, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify Defendant John Does did not 28 require him to do so. (See Doc. 19.) 1 As noted above and liberally construed, a review of the first amended complaint shows 2 Plaintiff identifies the defendant John Does, with sufficient facts concerning their involvement in 3 the claims alleged. (Doc. 13.) Thus, the filing of a second amended complaint to merely substitute 4 the names of the John Doe defendants is unnecessary. 5 Accordingly, the first amended complaint will remain the operative complaint in this 6 action and the Court will substitute the following individuals for the seven Doe defendants: 7 a. Ron Godwin in place of “John Doe, Warden.” 8 b. R. Kuhn in place of “John Doe, Facility B Captain.” 9 c. Facility B Lieutenants: 10 i. D. A. Davis (11/19/2020, 2nd watch; 11/21/2020, 2nd watch) 11 ii. Marquess III (11/19/2020, 3rd watch) 12 iii. M. Solis (11/21/2020, 3rd watch) 13 iv. A. A. Salas (11/30/2020, 2nd watch) 14 v. J. Rios (11/30/2020, 3rd watch) 15 vi. J. A. Teater (12/3/2020, 2nd watch) 16 vii. N. Greene (12/3/2020, 3rd watch) 17 viii. E. A. Molina (12/10/2020, 2nd watch) 18 ix. I. Rios (12/10/2020, 3rd watch). 19 d. Facility B Sergeants: 20 i. J. M. Elizalde (11/19/2020, 2nd watch) 21 ii. C. V. Kerber (11/19/2020, 3rd watch) 22 iii. J. Montano (11/21/2020, 2nd & 3rd watch) 23 iv. D. Cardenas (11/30/2020, 3rd watch) 24 v. C. A. Caldera (12/3/2020, 2nd watch) 25 vi. J. C. Black (12/3/2020, 3rd watch) 26 vii. Melendez Jr. (12/10/2020, 2nd watch) 27 viii. R. Ledesma (12/10/2020, 3rd watch). 28 e. Fogal in place of “John Doe, Facility C Captain.” 1 f. Facility C Lieutenants: 2 i. E. A. Molina (11/19/2020, 2nd watch; 11/21/2020, 3rd watch; 3 12/3/2020, 2nd watch; 12/10/2020, 2nd watch) 4 ii. L. D. Ybarra (11/19/2020, 3rd watch) 5 iii. T. D. Verbeek (11/21/2020, 2nd watch) 6 iv. A. R. Desfosses (11/30/2020, 2nd watch) 7 v. J. L. Martin (11/30/2020, 3rd watch; 12/10/2020, 3rd watch) 8 vi. J. Rios (12/3/2020, 3rd watch). 9 g. Facility C Sergeants: 10 i. J. M. Elizalde (11/19/2020, 2nd watch) 11 ii. C. V. Kerber (11/19/2020, 3rd watch; 11/21/2020, 3rd watch) 12 iii. T. J. Ramos (11/21/2020, 2nd watch) 13 iv. N. Greene Jr. (11/30/2020, 2nd watch) 14 v. A. M. Davidson (11/30/2020, 3rd watch) 15 vi. E. A. Molina (12/3/2020, 2nd watch; 12/10/2020, 2nd watch) 16 vii. J. Rios (12/3/2020, 3rd watch) 17 viii. J. L. Martin (12/3/2020, 3rd watch) 18 See, e.g., Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:23-cv- 19 01180-NODJ-SKO, 2024 WL 774952, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024); Cantu v. Doe 1, No. 1:20- 20 cv-00386-HBK, 2021 WL 2822531, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021); Altheide v. Williams, No. 21 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 2020 WL 42462 *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2020) (similarly treating 22 previously filed complaint as the operative complaint but substituting named-defendants for the 23 John Doe Defendants). 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s request to substitute John Doe defendants (Doc. 20) is GRANTED; 27 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to: 28 a. Substitute Ron Godwin in place of “Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison.” 1 b. Substitute R. Kuhn in place of “Facility B Captain at Pleasant Valley State 2 Prison.” 3 c. Substitute Fogal in place of “C Facility Captain.” 4 d. Substitute the following individuals in place of “B Facility Lieutenant:”1 5 i. D. A. Davis 6 ii. Marquess III 7 iii. M. Solis 8 iv. A. A. Salas 9 v. J. Rios 10 vi. J. A. Teater 11 vii. N. Greene 12 viii. E. A. Molina 13 ix. I. Rios. 14 e. Substitute the following individuals in place of “B Facility Sergeant:” 15 i. J. M. Elizalde 16 ii. C. V. Kerber 17 iii. J. Montano 18 iv. D. Cardenas 19 v. C. A. Caldera 20 vi. J. C. Black 21 vii. Melendez Jr. 22 viii. R. Ledesma. 23 f. Substitute the following individuals in place of “C Facility Lieutenant:” 24 i. L. D. Ybarra 25 ii. T. D. Verbeek 26 iii. A. R. Desfosses 27 1 To the extent the same individual’s name appears subsequently for a different facility within the institution and/or 28 on a different date, it has been omitted here only for purposes of avoiding duplication on the Court’s docket. 1 iv. J. L. Martin. 2 g. Substitute the following individuals in place of “C Facility Sergeant:” 3 i. T. J. Ramos 4 ii. A.M. Davidson. 5 3. Limited discovery is now closed. The Court will issue a separate order regarding 6 service of process of the foregoing individuals in due course. 7 | ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ December 30, 2024 | Ww VL D R~ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28