(PC) Roberts v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ROBERTS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-KES-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES 13 v. (Doc. 42) 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Clerk of the Court to Terminate a Defendant 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Paul Roberts is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 Following screening of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, this action proceeds on the 21 following claims: (a) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims 22 against Defendants CIM Warden, Delgadillo, and Gilman (claim one); (b) Eighth Amendment 23 failure to protect claims against Defendants CIM Warden, Delgadillo, Farooq, Gilman, Lemus, 24 and Torres (claim two); (c) Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants 25 Gonzales and Pilkerton (claim three); (d) an equal protection violation against Defendant 26 Pilkerton (claim three); (e) a due process violation against Defendant Pilkerton (claim three); (f) 27 Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 (claim four); and (g) an Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claim against Defendant Pilkerton 1 (claim four). (See Doc. 25.) 2 Following service of process,1 on November 22, 2023, Defendants Houston,2 Gilman, 3 Delgadillo, Lemus, Farooq, Torres, Pilkerton, and Gonzales filed a motion to partially dismiss 4 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff opposed (Doc. 36) and Defendants replied 5 (Doc. 37). 6 On August 1, 2024, the undersigned issued an Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days to 7 Identify Defendant John Does. (Doc. 39.) 8 On August 12, 2024, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Grant in 9 Part, and Deny in Part, Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended 10 complaint. (Doc. 40.) Defendants filed objections on August 26, 2024. (Doc. 41.) The Findings 11 and Recommendations remain pending before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. 12 On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Substitution. (Doc. 42.) 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff seeks to substitute California State Prison, Corcoran correctional officers G.S. 15 Covert for John Doe #1 and A. Parra for John Doe #2 in this action. (Doc. 42.) 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 // 26

27 1 Service of process regarding defendant John Does #1 and #2 has not yet been ordered.

2 1 Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the 2 defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the 3 August 1, 2024, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days To Identify Defendant John Does did not 4 require him to do so. (See Doc. 39.) 5 A review of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint shows Plaintiff identifies John Does #1 6 and #2 with sufficient facts concerning their involvement in the alleged excessive force at issue. 7 (See Doc. 24 at 22-26 [discussion re Claim Four]3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the excessive 8 force at issue—grabbing Plaintiff’s shirt and violently and repeatedly slamming their fists into 9 Plaintiff’s shoulders in the absence of provocation—occurred on August 15, 2020, following a 10 disciplinary hearing. (Id. at 22-23.) Thus, the filing of a second amended complaint to merely 11 substitute the names of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 is unnecessary. 12 Accordingly, the first amended complaint will remain the operative complaint in this 13 action and the Court will substitute John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 for the named individual 14 defendant Plaintiff identifies: G. S. Covert and A. Parra, respectively. See, e.g., Edwards v. 15 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:23-cv-01180-NODJ-SKO, 2024 16 WL 774952, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024); Cantu v. Doe 1, No. 1:20-cv-00386-HBK, 2021 WL 17 2822531, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021); Altheide v. Williams, No. 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 18 2020 WL 42462 * 1 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2020) (similarly treating previously filed complaint as the 19 operative complaint but substituting named-defendants for the John Doe Defendants). 20 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s request to substitute John Does #1 and John Doe #2 (Doc. 42) is 23 GRANTED; 24 3 The Court notes Claim Four in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint involves an excessive force claim involving John 25 Doe #1 and John Doe #2, now identified as G. S. Covert and A. Parra, as well as a related failure to intervene claim against Defendant Pilkerton. As specifically concerns Defendant Pilkerton, the undersigned previously recommended 26 Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint involving this claim against Defendant Pilkerton be denied. (See Doc. 40 at 19-20.) And as noted above, the Findings and Recommendations issued August 12, 2024, 27 remain pending before the assigned district judge. The Court will consider the propriety of severing any remaining claims involving the California Institute for Men (CIM) Defendants from those involving the California State Prison, 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to add G. S. Covert, correctional officer, and 2 A. Parra, correctional officer, to the docket caption for this action; 3 3. Limited discovery is now closed. The Court will issue a separate order regarding 4 service of process of Defendants Covert and Parra in due course; and 5 4. The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to terminate the “California Department 6 of Corrections” as a defendant in this action and update the docket accordingly as 7 Plaintiff's operative first amended complaint does not name the California Department 8 of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant. 9 | □□ ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ December 30, 2024 | Vv Vv R~ 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28