Cuong Huy Dao v. M. Bravo, et al.

Summary

This order in a prisoner civil-rights action grants Plaintiff Cuong Huy Dao 90 days to discover and identify two unidentified correctional officers allegedly involved in an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The Court discusses limited discovery, subpoenas, and alternative methods for identifying the John Doe defendants, and directs Plaintiff to file a notice of substitution. Failure to identify and substitute the defendants within 90 days will result in a recommendation that they be dismissed without prejudice.

Holdings

1. When the identities of defendants are unknown before a complaint is filed, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify them unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.
2. Any motion by an in forma pauperis plaintiff for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum must clearly identify the documents sought and show that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party; the court must also consider relevance and the burden and expense imposed on the nonparty.
3. Plaintiff is granted 90 days to discover and provide the actual names of the two John Doe defendants and file a notice of substitution; failure to do so may result in a recommendation that the claims against those individuals be dismissed without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a pro se prisoner should be afforded limited discovery to identify unknown correctional officers named as John Doe defendants.
2. What procedures and limitations govern Plaintiff's potential use of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the identities of the John Doe defendants.
3. Whether Plaintiff should be given a deadline to substitute the actual names of the John Doe defendants, subject to dismissal without prejudice if he fails to do so.

Disposition

other