David A. Thompson v. James S. Hill, et al.

Summary

The court grants in part and denies as moot several pro se plaintiff motions concerning amendment of the complaint, identification and service of defendants, and early discovery in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court construes one motion as a request for leave to file a third amended complaint, permits the addition of D. Van, and directs service efforts for G. Galvan and D. Van. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the superseded second amended complaint be denied as moot.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff's motion styled as a request for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) was properly construed as a motion for leave to amend, and leave to file a third amended complaint to add D. Van was granted.
2. The motion for early discovery to identify the John Doe ADA Sergeant was denied as moot because the defendant had already been identified as G. Galvan.
3. The court directed issuance of summonses and provided for U.S. Marshal service on G. Galvan and D. Van, with service on Van conditioned on his being named in the third amended complaint.
4. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss be denied as moot because the anticipated third amended complaint would supersede the pleading targeted by the motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add D. Van as a defendant.
2. Whether early discovery to identify a John Doe defendant remained appropriate after the defendant's identity was disclosed.
3. Whether the court should direct service on G. Galvan and D. Van.
4. Whether motions concerning service and substitution should be denied as moot after service was completed or amendment was authorized.
5. Whether defendants' motion to dismiss the superseded complaint should be recommended for denial as moot.

Disposition

other