(PC) Mekhtarian v. Ortega

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MARDIK K. MEKHTARIAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00696-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 90 DAYS TO IDENTIFY AND SUBSTITUTE 13 v. PROPER PARTIES 14 C. ORTEGA, et al., (Doc. 16) 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff Mardik K. Mekhtarian is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This action proceeds on claims of gross 19 negligence and medical malpractice against Defendant Ortega and claims of medical indifference 20 against Defendants Brosius and Does 1–10. Although Plaintiff has stated a claim against Does 1– 21 10, the Court will not require service on these defendants at this time. The Ninth Circuit has held 22 that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an 23 opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants unless it is clear that discovery 24 would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. 25 Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 26 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 90 days in which to discover the name of Does 1–10 through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these defendants’ actual names by filing a 1 | “Notice of Substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163 . If, within 90 days, Plaintiff fails to file 2 | anotice of substitution that provides the actual name of the Doe defendants, the Court will 3 || recommend dismissal of his claims against these defendants without prejudice. [4] 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ June 1, 2023 | hWravA Ke UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE