(PC)Coleman v. Moore

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00324
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NINETY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO 13 v. IDENTIFY DOE 1 AND DOE 2

14 MOORE, et al.,

15 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 3, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Following screening, in relevant 22 part, the Court found Plaintiff states cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 23 serious medical needs claims against Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2. (See Docs. 7 & 13.) 24 The Court now addresses the issue of Plaintiff’s need to identify Doe 1 and Doe 2 against 25 whom his Eighth Amendment claims proceed. 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2, both physicians, are employed at California State Prison- 1 respond to his pain and medical need for a CPAP device 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 Doe 1 and Doe 2 with enough information to locate these defendants 4 for service of process. Plaintiff will be given the “‘opportunity through discovery to identify the 5 unknown (Doe) defendants.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 Although Plaintiff has stated plausible Eighth Amendment claims against Doe 1 and Doe 7 2, the Court will not require service at this time. The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is 8 unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 9 discovery to identify the unknown defendants unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 10 the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 11 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 12 1980)). Here, it is unclear whether discovery would reveal the identity of Doe 1 and/or Doe 2 and 13 there is no indication that Plaintiff’s complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Thus, 14 Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to discover the identities of Doe 1 and Doe 2 through 15 limited discovery. 16 Initially, the Court notes Plaintiff may wish to seek the identities of Doe 1 and Doe 2 17 through other means. For example, Plaintiff might use a CDCR Form 22 to learn the identities of 18 Doe 1 and Doe 2, the physicians who treated him during the relevant period. Plaintiff might also 19 request copies of his relevant medical records that may include the actual names of Doe 1 and 20 Doe 2. See, e.g., Thompson v. Allison, No. 23-cv-05079-HSG, 2024 WL 4394759, at *3 (N.D. 21 Cal. Oct. 3, 2024) (“Plaintiff may be able to obtain the names of these [John Doe] individuals by 22 accessing his classification records or using the CDCR Form 22”). Otherwise, Plaintiff may seek 23 a subpoena to obtain the necessary information. 24 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns subpoenas. Plaintiff is advised 25 the Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff 26 is subject to limitations. Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required (Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 45(b)), “[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a 1 | WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). Limitations include the 2 | relevance of the information sought, as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in 3 | providing the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. 4 A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear 5 | identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through 6 | the identified third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO (PC), 2010 7 | WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS 8 | (PC), 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were 9 | not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to 10 | comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 11 | Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of the Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. 12 | Td. 13 Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff has learned the names of Doe | and Doe 2 since 14 | filing his complaint, and/or does not require a subpoena to obtain these individuals’ identities, 15 | Plaintiff shall file a notice of substitution with the Court, asking to substitute that individual’s 16 | actual name for “Doe 1” and/or “Doe 2.” 17 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 90 days in which to discover the identities of 19 | Doe 1 and Doe 2, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these Defendants’ actual 20 | names by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. If, within 90 days, 21 | Plaintiff fails to file a notice of substitution that provides the actual names of Doe | and Doe 2, 22 | the Court will recommend dismissal, without prejudice, of Defendants Doe | and Doe 2. 23 | IT IS SOORDERED. | Dated: _ May 16, 2025 | Wr bo 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28