Keon Andre Brackenridge v. S.A.T.F. New Corcoran Correctional Officers, et al.
Keon Andre Brackenridge v. S.A.T.F. New Corcoran Correctional Officers, et al.
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEON ANDRE BRACKENRIDGE, No. 1:25-cv-00352-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO SUBSTITUTE NAMES OF DOE DEFENDANTS 14 S.A.T.F. NEW CORCORAN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, et al., (ECF No. 27) 15
16 Defendants.
17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 2, 2025, the Court ordered service of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as 21 to Doe Defendants 1 and 2 (correctional officers at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State 22 Prison and State Prison, Corcoran [SATF]) for excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 23 (ECF No. 21.) However, because a Doe Defendant cannot be served, the Court allowed Plaintiff 24 to subpoena documents from the prison to allow him to identify the Doe Defendants and sent 25 Plaintiff the form AO 88B and form USM-285, for completion and return. (Id.) 26 On November 7, 2025, the Court directed service of the subpoena by the United States 27 Marshal. (ECF No. 25.) On November 18, 2025, the executed subpoena was returned. (ECF No. 28 1 26.) 2 On December 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to “name John Doe Defendants.” (ECF 3 No. 27.) Plaintiff seeks to substitute the John Doe Defendants’ names to correctional officer F. 4 Figueroa, correctional officer J. Gomez, and sergeant R. Valero, all sued in their official and 5 individual capacities. (Id.) 6 The Court’s October 2, 2025 screening order specifically found that Plaintiff stated “a 7 cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendant Does 1 and 2, correctional officers at the 8 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF).” (ECF No. 21 at 1.) 9 Plaintiff was not granted leave to add or substitute new Defendants to this action, and there are no 10 allegations, whatsoever, to give rise to any cognizable claim against acting sergeant R. Valero. 11 Nor are there any allegations to give rise to an official capacity claim against either Doe 12 Defendant. Indeed, sergeant R. Valero is not named in the operative second amended complaint, 13 and there are no factual allegations linking him/her to any affirmative action or omission giving 14 rise to the alleged constitutional violation. In addition, Plaintiff cannot seek liability against 15 Defendants in their official capacities because “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money 16 damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials in their official 17 capacities.” Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety,
488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff 18 cannot seek to amend the complaint by way of filing a motion to substitute the Doe Defendants.1 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion to substitute the two John Doe Defendants is GRANTED; 21 2. The Clerk of Court shall substitute F. Figueroa and J. Gomez as the named 22 Defendants in this action; and 23 /// 24
25 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings, which provides that: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after 26 service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,
375 F.2d 55, 57(9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended pleading is 27 filed, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Id.; see also Local Rule 220 (every pleading to which an amendment is permitted as a matter of right shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without 28 reference to the prior pleading.). 1 3. Plaintiff's motion to add Defendant R. Valero and official capacity claims is 2 DENIED, without prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. tf (Sc 5 || Dated: _ December 22, 2025 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown