Opinion
2:22-cv-00293-CDS-NJK
11-23-2022
AMMAR HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES DANIELS., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
[DOCKET NOS. 34, 35]
NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Coin! are Plaintiffs motions for clarification. Docket No. 34, and for limited discovery, Docket No. 35. Plaintiffs motion for clarification is seeking to clarify that defendant Wilson F's frill name is Wilson F. Bemales. Docket No. 34 at 2-3. The Court construes pro se filings liberally, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237,1241 (9th Cir. 2013), and so interprets this motion as a motion to substitute parties. Because Plaintiff is merely trying to substitute an incompletely named party for a completely named party, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion' for clarification. Docket No. 34. The Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to substitute Wilson F. for Wilson F. Bemales on the docket sheet.
Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking limited discovery for the purpose of perfecting service. Docket No. 35 at 2. The Court's order granting Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis ' also ordered the Attorney General's Office to file a notice, within twenty-one days of that order's entry, containing “(a) the names of the defendants for whom it accepts service; (b) the names of the defendants for whom it does not accept service, and (c) the names of the defendants for whom it is filing the last-known-address information under seal.” Docket No. 31 at 2. The Attorney' General's Office has not yet filed that notice. See Docket. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for limited discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.