Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00109-MSK-BNB.
March 29, 2006
ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights case in which the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that three unknown police officers seized and have illegally retained possession of his cell phone. The plaintiff is proceeding pro se and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. A problem arises, however, because the plaintiff has not described the defendants with sufficient particularity that their identities can be determined, nor does he know their names. Consequently, the plaintiff has not made service, and the Marshal cannot serve "unknown" police officers. The case is at a standstill until the defendants can be identified and added as parties.
I held a status conference with the plaintiff this morning at which these problems were discussed. Consistent with matters addressed at the status conference:
IT IS ORDERED that on or before May 29, 2006, the plaintiff shall identify by name the police officers he intends to assert his claims against and shall move to amend the complaint to add the particular officers as named defendants. A failure by the plaintiff to comply with the requirements of this order will result in an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court.