(PC) Matlock v. Kern County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 90 DAYS TO IDENTIFY JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 13 v. 14 KERN COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 90-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 This action proceeds against a John Does #1, #2, and #3 on Fourteenth Amendment 18 failure to protect claims. (Docs. 30, 31.) Although Plaintiff has stated a claim against the John 19 Doe defendants, the Court will not require service on these defendants at this time. The Ninth 20 Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff 21 should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants unless it is 22 clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 23 other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. 24 Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 90 days in which to discover the name of the John 26 Doe defendants through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute this defendant’s actual name by 27 filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. If, within 90 days, plaintiff fails to 28 file a notice of substitution that provides the actual name of John Does #1, #2, and #3, the Court will 1 recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: September 29, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28