Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California construed Plaintiff Jaime Cesar Gonzalez’s response as a motion for discovery and appointment of counsel. The court denied both requests without prejudice, finding the discovery request premature and the requirements for exceptional circumstances for appointed counsel unmet. The court granted Plaintiff thirty days to identify the Doe defendants for service of process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to court assistance in obtaining third-party records to identify Doe defendants before any defendant had been served.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
- Whether Plaintiff should receive additional time to identify the Doe defendants for service of process.
Holdings
- The request for discovery was denied without prejudice because Plaintiff did not identify the subpoena recipient, did not show that the records were obtainable only from a third party, and made the request before discovery had been opened.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to appointed counsel, and the court declined to request volunteer counsel because exceptional circumstances were not shown.
- Plaintiff was granted thirty days from service of the order to file a motion providing sufficient information to identify John Doe and Jane Doe for service of process.
Key quotations
“A request for the issuance of a records subpoena requires Plaintiff to: (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a showing that the records are only obtainable through that third party.” (at 2)
“In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”” (at 3)
“If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss any unidentified defendant(s) from this action, without prejudice, for failure to serve with process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (at 4)
Factual background
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a § 1983 action alleging that correctional personnel were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by forcing him into a wheelchair-equipped transport van without a wheelchair after back surgery. He sought records identifying the personnel involved in transporting him from Adventist Bakersfield Hospital and identified Jane Doe as a female lieutenant responsible for inmate-patients at the hospital. No defendant had been served when Plaintiff requested court assistance with discovery.
Procedural history
Plaintiff's first amended complaint proceeded against Jane Doe, John Doe, and Martinez based on alleged deliberate indifference to medical care. The court previously directed Plaintiff to provide information sufficient to identify the Doe defendants for service and separately directed service on Martinez; service on Martinez was unsuccessful. Plaintiff responded by requesting assistance in obtaining records, appointment of counsel, and additional time to identify the Doe defendants. The court denied the discovery and counsel requests without prejudice and granted thirty days to identify the Doe defendants.