(PC) Wuco v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAVID WILLIAM WUCO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00572-KES-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. NINETY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO IDENTIFY DOE DEFENDANTS 14 JOHN DOE, et al., 90-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David William Wuco is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 12, 2025, District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff issued his Order Adopting Findings and 21 Recommendations. (Doc. 21.) Accordingly, this action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment excessive force claim against John Doe, and Eighth Amendment deliberate 23 indifference to serious medical needs claims against John Doe and Jane Doe. (Id. at 2.) 24 The Court now addresses the issue of Plaintiff’s need to identify John Doe and Jane Doe 25 against whom his Eighth Amendment claims proceed. 27 John Doe, a correctional officer, and Jane Doe, a certified nursing assistant or registered nurse, were employed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in 2021 when Plaintiff’s claims 1 arose and are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges John Doe used excessive force 2 against him and that John Doe and Jane Doe were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 3 needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 4 Plaintiff is reminded that the United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants.1 5 Plaintiff will be required to identify John Doe and Jane Doe with enough information to locate 6 these defendants for service of process. Plaintiff will be given the “‘opportunity through 7 discovery to identify the unknown (Doe) defendants.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 8 (9th Cir. 2013). 9 Although Plaintiff has stated plausible Eighth Amendment claims against these 10 individuals, the Court will not require service at this time. The Ninth Circuit has held that where 11 identity is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity 12 through discovery to identify the unknown defendants unless it is clear that discovery would not 13 uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. 14 Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 15 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, it is not clear that discovery would not uncover the identities of John Doe 16 and Jane Doe. Nor is there any indication that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint would be 17 dismissed on other grounds. Thus, Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to discover the 18 identities of John Doe and Jane Doe through limited discovery. 19 Initially, the Court notes Plaintiff may wish to seek the identities of John Doe and Jane 20 Doe through other means. For example, Plaintiff might request copies of his medical records or 21 other relevant records that may include the actual names of John Doe and Jane Doe. See, e.g., 22 Thompson v. Allison, No. 23-cv-05079-HSG, 2024 WL 4394759, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2024) 23 (“Plaintiff may be able to obtain the names of these [John Doe] individuals by accessing his 24 classification records or using the CDCR Form 22”). Plaintiff may also seek a subpoena to obtain 25 the necessary information. 26 27 1 Plaintiff has been previously advised that the United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants. (See Doc. 13 at 7 & Doc. 16 at 7-8.) 1 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses subpoenas. Plaintiff is advised 2 the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff 3 is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required (Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 45(b)), “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a 5 subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 6 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the 7 relevance of the information sought, as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in 8 providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. 9 A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear 10 identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through 11 the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 2010 12 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS 13 (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were 14 not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to 15 comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 16 Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. 17 Id. 18 Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff has learned the names of John Doe and Jane Doe 19 since filing his first amended complaint, and/or does not require a subpoena to obtain these 20 individuals’ identities, Plaintiff shall file a notice of substitution with the Court, asking to 21 substitute that individual’s actual name for “John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe.” 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff ninety (90) days in which to discover the 24 identities of John Doe and Jane Doe, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these 25 individuals’ actual names by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. 26 // 27 // 1 If, within 90 days, Plaintiff fails to file a notice of substitution that provides the actual 2 name of John Doe and/or Jane Doe, the Court will recommend dismissal, without prejudice, of 3 Defendants John Doe and/or Jane Doe. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: June 13, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

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