Cuong Huy Dao v. M. Bravo, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CUONG HUY DAO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00970-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 13 v. OF TIME TO IDENTITY DOE DEFENDANTS M. BRAVO, et al., (Doc. No. 22) 15 Defendants.

17 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to the Court’s 90 Days Discovery Order for John Does.” (Doc. No. 22, “Reply”). Plaintiff states that he submitted a CDCR Form 22 requesting the identities of the Unidentified Correctional Officers (“Doe Defendants”) from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) but has not yet received a response. Plaintiff requests that the Court “obtain all involved Defendants.” (Id. at 3).

22 The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a request for an extension of time to serve the John Doe Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).1 The Court recently stayed this case to allow the parties to participate in early alternative dispute resolution. (Doc. No. 21).

25 Therefore, the Court finds good cause under Rule 4(m) to relieve Plaintiff of the 90-day deadline A pleading's “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass'n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm'ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, courts are instructed to “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. | while the stay is in effect. Plaintiff need not identify the Doe Defendants at this time.

2 If the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the Court will lift the stay and enter a | discovery and scheduling order. At that time, Plaintiff may utilize the discovery process to obtain | the names of the Doe Defendants. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013) | (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (“the plaintiff should be given an | opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that | discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other | grounds”). The Court will grant Plaintiff an adequate extension of time to identify the Doe | Defendants when and if the stay is lifted.

10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 22), construed as a request for an extension of time to || comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is GRANTED. The deadline for Plaintiff to || identify and substitute the Doe Defendants is STAYED until further order of court.

1S Dated: _ January 15, 2026 oe Uh. Sareh Zackte 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE