# Dominguez > District Court, E.D. California · April 8, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379862 ## Case - **Full name:** Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson v. Dominguez, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** April 8, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379862 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379862. Public record. Not legal advice.