(PC) Cantu v. Ward ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JESSE CANTU, Case No. 120-cv-00386-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE JOHN DOE 13 v. DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 AND DIRECTING CLERK TO CORRECT CAPTION OF CASE 14 JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; P. WARD; B. XIONG; P. DUNN, (Doc. No. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joshua Jesse Cantu, a pro se prisoner, initiated this action by filing a civil rights 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his First Amended Complaint 19 (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 7). On June 11, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide written notice 20 identifying John Does 1-2 within ninety days for the Court to effect service of process. (Doc. No. 21 13). Plaintiff timely filed “Notice of John Doe Defendants” in compliance with this Court’s June 22 11 Order. (Doc. No. 17, “Notice”). The Court construes the Notice to include a motion under 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) to substitute the John Doe Defendants 1 and 2 for the proper names in the 24 FAC. Plaintiff identifies John Doe 1 as “D. Cortez” and John Doe 2 as “J. Soto,” both as 25 Correctional Officers at North Kern State Prison. (Id. at 2). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides: 27 (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 28 1 (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and 2 if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 3 (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be 4 prejudiced in defending on the merits; and 5 (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper 6 party’s identity. 7 Id. (emphasis in original). 8 Plaintiff identifies the two John Doe Defendants by name, stating that he “has been 9 diligently seeking the true names of the John Does 1-2.” (Doc. No. 17 at 2). Although Plaintiff 10 did not submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint identifying the defendants by name 11 within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the June 11 Order did not 12 require him to do so. (See Doc. No. 13); see also Local Rule 220 (E.D. Ca. 2019)(stating in 13 relevant part that “changed pleadings” shall refer to the amended and supplemental pleadings and 14 unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained, every pleading to which an amendment or 15 supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by the court order shall be typed 16 and filed so that it is complete in itself without preference to the prior or superseded pleading. . . 17 .”)(emphasis added). 18 A review of the FAC shows Plaintiff identifies “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2” with 19 sufficient facts directed at each regarding their involvement in the alleged excessive use of force 20 at issue. (Doc. No. 7 at 3, 5). The use of force at issue appears to have happened in a continuum 21 involving several correctional officials. (Id. at 3, 5) (stating among other facts “John Doe 1 began 22 punching me with his closed fists to my had, face and body with extreme force. . . .”); (Id. at 6) 23 (stating “John Doe 2 began punching me also to my head, face, and body quite hard with extreme 24 force.”). Thus, a filing a Second Amended Complaint to merely substitute the names of the John 25 Doe Defendants 1 and 2 for the named Defendants is unnecessary. 26 Based on the foregoing, the FAC will remain the operative complaint in this action and 27 the Court will substitute John Doe Defendants 1 and 2 for the named defendants Plaintiff 28 identifies. See, Altheide v. Williams, Case No. 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 2020 WL 42462 * 1 1 | (D. Nevada Jan. 3, 2020) (similarly treating previously filed complaint as the operative complaint 2 | but substituting named-defendants for the John Doe Defendants). The Court further directs the 3 | Clerk to correct the caption of the case to reflect the substitution of John Doe | and John Doe 2 4 | forthe named Defendants. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. No. 17) seeking to amend the Complaint to substitute the John 7 | Doe Defendants 1 and 2 is GRANTED and D. Cortez shall be substituted for John Doe 1 and J. 8 | Soto shall be substituted for John Doe 2. 9 2. The Clerk shall correct the caption to reflect these substitutions. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2021 law Nh. fareh Base □□□ 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28