(PC) Rood v. Shasta County Jail Medical Staff ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLTON JAMES ROOD, No. 2:19-cv-1630 MCE DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHASTA COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a second 20 amended complaint pursuant to the court’s August 3, 2021 order. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff 21 requested and was granted one prior thirty-day extension of time to file a second amended 22 complaint on September 13, 2021. (ECF No. 22.) On January 25, 2022, the court ordered 23 plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to file an 24 amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) 25 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is included in his response to the court’s order 26 to show cause. (ECF No. 24.) In his response, plaintiff requests that the court “allow this case to 27 proceed to discovery phase or allow time to gather necessary information to proceed with an 28 amended complaint.” (ECF No. 24 at 2.) Plaintiff contends that he does not “believe the court 1 was fair” to order that plaintiff must “name specifically all doe defendants and give specific time 2 frame the offensive action occurred.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that he cannot identify the 3 defendants without proceeding to the discovery phase. (Id.) As such, plaintiff requests that the 4 court either find the claims against “Doe” defendants in the first amended complaint to be 5 cognizable or that plaintiff be granted an extension of time for “several months” so that he can 6 identify the defendants. (Id. at 2.) 7 In its screening order of plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the court found plaintiff had 8 failed to state a cognizable claim as he had not alleged the specific acts taken by each Doe 9 defendant. (ECF No. 16 at 7.) As stated in the order, Doe defendants can be used in a complaint 10 but § 1983 requires that plaintiff allege the specific acts each individual Doe defendant took that 11 violated his constitutional rights. Alexander v. Tilton, No. 1:07-cv-0759 LJO DLB, 2009 WL 12 464486, *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009). The court found that plaintiff had only generally alleged 13 that “Doe defendants 1-20” had violated his rights and had not attributed specific actions to 14 specific Doe defendants. (ECF No. 16 at 7.) If plaintiff elected to file an amended complaint, as 15 he did, the court directed him to “do everything he can to supply the names of the Doe defendant” 16 (Id. at 10) and to “identify specific defendants and the actions they took to violate his 17 constitutional rights” (Id. at 7). 18 Plaintiff appears to have misunderstood these directions as stating that the second 19 amended complaint should only include the actual names of each defendant. (See ECF No. 24 at 20 1.) This is incorrect. Doe defendants are disfavored and plaintiff should make every effort to 21 supply the names of each defendant but they are permitted. If this proves impossible, plaintiff 22 may be afforded limited discovery to determine defendant’s identities in the future. However, 23 even if plaintiff uses Doe defendants, he is still required to identify the specific actions taken by 24 each individual Doe defendant in order to state a claim. Alexander, 2009 WL 464486, *5; see 25 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). This was the reason plaintiff’s claims 26 were not found to be cognizable previously. (See ECF No. 16 at 7.) 27 Given plaintiff’s apparent misunderstanding of the court’s prior order and his claimed 28 difficulty in determining the identity of Doe defendants, there appears to be good cause to extend 1 the deadline for plaintiff to file an amended complaint. However, plaintiff has not explained why 2 “several months” of additional time (ECF No. 24 at 2), beyond the seven months he has already 3 had, is necessary to file an amended complaint. Therefore, the court will grant the motion in part. 4 Any future motion should explain how the circumstances complained of have impacted plaintiff’s 5 ability to comply with the current deadline. 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1.Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 24) is granted in part and denied in 8 part; and 9 2.Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a 10 second amended complaint. 11 DATED: March 4, 2022 12 13 14 15 16 17 DB:14 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/rood1630.36amc(2) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28