The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 MICHAEL BRUCE ANTHONY Case No. 1:25-cv-00889-JLT-BAM (PC)
MCPHERSON,
10 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Plaintiff, TO SUBSTITUTE THE IDENTITY OF
11 DEFENDANT JOHN DOE #1 IN THE
v. COMPLAINT
12
DOMINGUEZ, et al., (ECF No. 16)
13
Defendants. ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
14 TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT JOHN DOE #1
FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
15
SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE
16
17 I. Background
18 Plaintiff Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding
19 pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action
20 proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant John Doe #1 for violation of the Eighth
21 Amendment for the incident on January 13, 2025. (ECF No. 14.)
22 On March 24, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute the identity
23 of Defendant John Doe #1 that provides the Court with enough information to locate him for
24 service of process. (ECF No. 15.)
25 On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute the identity of Defendant John Doe
26 #1. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff states that as “John Doe #1 is a ‘correctional officer’ under the
27 jurisdiction of CDCR, and the ‘body cam’ and ‘building cam’ has his ‘Hispanic identity,’ the
28 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; legally is responsible for John Doe #1
1 and substituted as such; the new defendant.” (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that service shall be on
2 the attorney general. (Id.)
3 II. Motion for Substitution
4 Plaintiff’s motion for substitution will be denied without prejudice. To the extent
5 Plaintiff seeks to substitute CDCR as the defendant in this action, which seeks monetary
6 damages, he may not do so. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal
7 court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei v.
8 Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment
9 prohibits federal courts from hearing a section 1983 lawsuit in which damages or injunctive relief
10 is sought against a state, its agencies (such as CDCR) or individual prisons, absent “a waiver by
11 the state or a valid congressional override. . . .” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th
12 Cir. 1999). “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief
13 against a state, ‘an arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” See Fireman’s Fund
14 Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and
15 citations omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 961 (2003). “The State of California has not waived its
16 Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal
17 court. . . .” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025–26 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S.
18 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009)
19 (finding California Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to
20 Eleventh Amendment immunity).
21 III. Identification of Doe Defendant
22 As to the identification of Defendant John Doe #1, Plaintiff has referenced specific video
23 footage that he believes contains the necessary information. However, Plaintiff has not stated
24 whether he has made any efforts to review this footage without the Court’s assistance. Plaintiff
25 also has not indicated whether he has used the resources available to him without Court
26 intervention, including, but not limited to, information from incident reports, rules violation
27 reports, or other documents, which may be available upon request from prison officials. Plaintiff
28 is reminded that it is his responsibility to provide the Court with information to identify John Doe
1 #1 for service of process.
2 However, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff an extension of time to identify
3 Defendant John Doe #1. If Plaintiff is unable to obtain identifying information for John Doe #1
4 by the extended deadline, Plaintiff may file a motion for extension of time that sets forth good
5 cause for the request, including what efforts he has taken to identify this defendant. For example,
6 Plaintiff may include what specific information he has requested, who he has requested the
7 information from, and what responses, if any, he has received. If Plaintiff does not show good
8 cause for a further extension of time or does not provide any information regarding what steps he
9 has taken to identify John Doe #1, then the Court will dismiss the unidentified defendant from
10 this action. As John Doe #1 is the only defendant named in this action, then the action will also
11 be dismissed without prejudice.
12 IV. Conclusion and Order
13 For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
14 1. Plaintiff’s motion to substitute the identity of Defendant John Doe #1, (ECF No. 16),
15 is DENIED without prejudice;
16 2. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file a
17 motion to substitute the identity of Defendant John Doe #1 that provides the Court
18 with enough information to locate this defendant for service of process; and
19 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, then the Court will dismiss any
20 unidentified defendant(s) from this action, and dismiss this action without
21 prejudice, for failure to serve with process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
22 Procedure 4(m).
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25 Dated: April 8, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28