(PC) Paschall v. Johal

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR PASCHALL, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00154-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NINETY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO 13 v. IDENTIFY JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE

14 AMANDEEP JOHAL, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lamar Paschall is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff filed a complaint on February 2, 2024. (Doc. 1.) Following screening, the Court 21 found Plaintiff states cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 22 needs claims against Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe. (See Doc. 13.) 23 The Court now addresses the need to identify Jane Doe and John Doe against whom the 24 Eighth Amendment claims will proceed. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe are employed as registered nurses at the Sierra 27 Conservation Center and are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Jane Doe and John Doe purposefully failed to respond to his pain or possible medical need by ignoring his continued 1 complaints of pain and requests to see a physician in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2 Plaintiff is advised that the United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants. Plaintiff 3 will be required to identify Jane Doe and John Doe with enough information to locate these 4 individuals for service of process. 1 Plaintiff will be given the “‘opportunity through discovery to 5 identify the unknown (Doe) defendants.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 6 2013). 7 As previously noted, this action proceeds, in part, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 8 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Jane Doe and John 9 Doe. Although Plaintiff has stated plausible claims against Jane Doe and John Doe, the Court will 10 not require service at this time. The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to 11 the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to 12 identify the unknown defendants unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, 13 or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 14 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, 15 discovery may identify Jane Doe and/or John Doe. And there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff’s 16 complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Thus, Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity 17 to discover the identities of Jane Doe and John Doe through limited discovery. 18 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses subpoenas. Plaintiff is advised 19 the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff 20 is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required (Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 45(b)), “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a 22 subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 23 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the 24

25 1 Plaintiff is advised it is his obligation to identify any Doe defendant named in this action. See, e.g., Johnson v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-1093 JAM KJN P, 2020 WL 7405693, at *2, n.3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 26 2020) (“It is Plaintiff’s obligation to timely identify individuals named as defendants in a civil rights complaint”); Reyes v. Flores, No. 1:16-cv-00586-DAD-JLT (PC), 2018 WL 3968245, at *10 (E.D. Cal. 27 Aug. 16, 2019) (“It is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the information necessary to identify and locate a given defendant”). 1 relevance of the information sought, as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in 2 providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. 3 A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear 4 identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through 5 the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 2010 6 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS 7 (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were 8 not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to 9 comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 10 Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. 11 Id. 12 Plaintiff may also elect to learn the identities of Jane Doe and John Doe by alternate 13 means. For example, Plaintiff might use a CDCR Form 22 to learn the identities of Jane Doe and 14 John Doe, the registered nurses working on February 5, 2021, to vaccinate inmates with the 15 Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff can also request copies of his relevant medical records that 16 may include the actual names of Jane Doe and John Doe. See, e.g., Thompson v. Allison, No. 23- 17 cv-05079-HSG, 2024 WL 4394759, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2024) (“Plaintiff may be able to 18 obtain the names of these [John Doe] individuals by accessing his classification records or using 19 the CDCR Form 22”). 20 Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff has learned the name or names of Jane Doe and/or 21 John Doe since filing his complaint, and/or does not require a subpoena to obtain these 22 individuals’ identities, Plaintiff shall file a notice of substitution with the Court, asking to 23 substitute that individual’s actual name for “Jane Doe” or “John Doe.” 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff ninety (90) days in which to 26 discover the actual names of Jane Doe and John Doe, through subpoena or otherwise, and to 27 substitute these defendants’ actual names by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 1 actual names of Jane Doe and/or John Doe, the Court will recommend dismissal, without 2 prejudice, of any such individual. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: May 13, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27