UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2011
GERALD A. WEST,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY (ECF No. 31)
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DUE WITHIN 120 DAYS
Plaintiff Gerald A. West ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Does 1, 2, and 3 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.) Because Plaintiff referred to pertinent Defendants as Does, on February 18, 2011, the Court ordered him to provide further information to initiate service of process on these Defendants. (ECF No. 29.) On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff, who has since been transferred from that institution, responded with each Doe's place of employment, location upon Plaintiff's arrival to the institution, appropriate dates, and positions, but was unable to provide enough information to effectuate service. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff then filed a Motion/Request Permission to Engage in Discovery. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff states that he would like to engage in discovery "for the purpose of gathering document, video tape, identifying individual and material concerning this civil action." (Id. at p. 1.)
The Court finds that good cause exists to open discovery for the limited purpose of identifying Doe Defendants. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980) ("the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants"); Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff is not to engage in discovery for any other purpose other than to identify Defendant Does against whom cognizable claims have been found.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request to engage in limited discovery to identify Doe Defendants is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of service of this Order to provide the identifying information to the Court for service of process; and
3. If Plaintiff fails to provide this information within the 120 days, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.