Opinion
2:19-cv-01139-MCE-DMC
11-20-2023
RYAN A. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. PLACER COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court previously reviewed the docket in this case (including status reports and declarations filed by both sides) and observed that the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) names only Doe defendants, none of whom have been served. According to Plaintiff's Status Report at that time:
[Plaintiff's counsel] met and conferred with the attorneys representing Placer County and the City of Roseville and they both take the position that they are not obligated to provide the identities of the DOE defendants in this case so that Plaintiff can have them served, or to accept service on behalf of any DOE defendants.
Plaintiff now awaits further instruction from the Court as to how to move forward.
ECF No. 69 at 2. This Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). The Court made clear:
It is not the obligation of this Court to advise Plaintiff who to have served. Nor has there been any request for assistance from the Court filed in the more than one year since the Third Amended Complaint was filed.
Accordingly, not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties.ECF No. 71.
Plaintiff timely responded to the OSC and advised again that after filing the TAC, counsel “waited for a summons to be issued and or for further instructions from the Court.” ECF No. 72 at 2. This theme is repeated throughout the response, along with the argument that the entity Defendants have taken the position they are not required to voluntarily disclose the identity of the Doe officers.
This Court is at a loss to determine how on God's green earth it could issue summons, let alone direct the U.S. Marshal's Service to serve that summons, on unidentified parties. Nor have any formal arguments been presented to the Court via any sort of motion to compel as to why the dismissed entity Defendants should be directed to identify their employee officers. Essentially, Plaintiff filed a TAC that sues nobody and then sat on his rights waiting for the Court to do counsel's job.
The Court has no idea if there may be countervailing legal duties the entity Defendants owe to their employees to decline to disclose their identifies unless certain preconditions are met. Questions like that could be addressed via briefing on a motion to compel, had Plaintiff bothered to file one.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds there is no good cause to extend the time to serve Defendants and dismissal of this action is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). In addition, dismissal is warranted because after well over a year of taking no action in this case and making no attempts to move the case forward after being pressed by the Court and advised that the Court is not obligated to identify and serve Doe Defendants, Plaintiff still continues to take no ownership in attempting to identify those officers by filing a motion to compel or doing literally anything else. Dismissal for failure to prosecute and to follow the applicable rules and orders of this Court is accordingly justified as well. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
This action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, and Counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on his client and file that proof of service with the Court not later than five (5) days following the date this Order is electronically filed. In the meantime, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.