(PC) Howard v. Kern County Lerdo Facility Medical Cheif ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY HOWARD, Case No. 1:21-cv-00931-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF 13 v. PARTIES 14 KERN COUNTY LERDO FACILITY MEDICAL CHIEF, et al., (Doc. 28) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Billy Howard is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On May 15, 2023, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Substitution 21 of Parties and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Request for Subpoena Duces 22 Tecum. (Doc. 25.) 23 On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an untitled document which the Court construes to be a 24 motion to substitute additional parties. (Doc. 28.) 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiff seeks to substitute Defendant Doe 3 for K. Gooden and Defendant Doe 4 for 27 Elena Peters. (Doc. 28.) // 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides: 2 (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 3 (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 4 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 5 and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 6 (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and 7 (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been 8 brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper party's identity. 9 10 Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the 11 defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the 12 January 5, 2023, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days to Identify Jane Does did not require him to do 13 so. (See Doc. 21.) 14 A review of the complaint shows Plaintiff identifies the Lerdo facility nursing staff 15 defendants with sufficient facts directed at each individual regarding their involvement in the 16 alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs at issue. (Doc. 1.) The deliberate 17 indifference to serious medical needs at issue happened in a continuum between approximately 18 December 2020 and January 2021 involving several unidentified medical staff at the facility. (Id. 19 at 3-5.) Thus, the filing of an amended complaint to merely substitute the names of Doe 20 Defendants (or Jane Does) 3 and 4, is unnecessary. 21 Accordingly, the original complaint will remain the operative complaint in this action and 22 the Court will substitute Doe Defendants 3 and 4 for the named defendants Plaintiff identifies. 23 See, e.g., Cantu v. Doe 1, No. 1:20-cv-00386-HBK, 2021 WL 2822531, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 24 2021) (directing clerk of court to update case caption to reflect substituted, named parties); 25 Altheide v. Williams, No. 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 2020 WL 42462 * 1 (D. Nevada Jan. 3, 26 2020) (similarly treating previously filed complaint as the operative complaint but substituting 27 named-defendants for the John Doe Defendants). 1 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's request to substitute Doe Defendants 3 and 4 (Doc. 28) is GRANTED; 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to add K. Gooden and Elena Peters to the 5 caption for this action; and 6 3. Limited discovery concerning the Doe Defendants is now closed. The Court will issue 7 a separate order regarding service of process in due course. 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 23, 2023 | hr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28