(PC) Kohut et al v. Allison et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JONATHAN KOHUT,
Plaintiff,
v.
K. ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1:20-cv-01584-JLT-CDB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY
(Doc. 70)
Clerk of the Court to Adjust Docket
Plaintiff Jonathan Kohut is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
I. INTRODUCTION
Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s various federal constitutional and
state law claims against Defendants Anaya, Frauenheim, Doe 1, Doe 2, Godwin, Lemon,
Macomber, and Van Ingen.
On June 12, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff ninety days within which to
identify Does 1 and 2 and to file a notice of substitution. (Doc. 48.)
Ultimately, following issuance and service of a subpoena (see Doc. 55) and an extension
of the relevant deadline (see Doc. 68), Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Notice/Request
for Substitution of Parties and Service of Process” on January 5, 2026. (Doc. 70.) The Court
construes the filing to be a request to substitute the actual names for the individuals sued as John

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
or Jane Doe 1 and 2 in Plaintiff’s operative complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to substitute J. Wisley and R. Ruggles for John or Jane Doe 1 and M.
Capello and S. Hicks for John or Jane Doe 2. (Doc. 70 at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides:
(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the
pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party
against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and
if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons
and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in
defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been
brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper party's
identity.
Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint identifying the
defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the
June 12, 2025, Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days to Identify Doe 1 and Doe 2 did not require him
to do so. (See Doc. 48.)
A review of the operative third amended complaint shows Plaintiff identified John or Jane
Doe 1 as an official with the Institutional Security Unit (ISU) at Pleasant Valley State Prison
(PVSP), and John or Jane Doe 2 as a receiving and release official at PVSP. (See Doc. 45 at 2.)
More particularly, Plaintiff pled sufficient facts concerning those individuals’ involvement in the
alleged First Amendment right to send and receive mail and First Amendment retaliation claims.
(See Docs. 45 & 46 [Claims 1 & 2].) Further, Plaintiff pled sufficient facts concerning John or
Jane Doe 2’s involvement in the alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. (See id.
[Claim 4].) Lastly, Plaintiff pled sufficient facts concerning John or Jane Does 1 and 2 concerning
their involvement in his Bane Act and state law negligence claims. (See id. [Claims 5 & 7].) Thus,
the filing of an amended complaint to merely substitute the names of John or Jane Does 1 and 2 is
unnecessary.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Accordingly, the third amended complaint will remain the operative complaint in this
action and the Court will substitute John or Jane Doe 1 for the named defendants Plaintiff
identifies as J. Wisley and/or R. Ruggles and will substitute John or Jane Doe 2 for the named
defendants Plaintiff identifies as M. Capello and/or S. Hicks. See, e.g., Cantu v. Doe 1, No. 1:20-
cv-00386-HBK, 2021 WL 2822531, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2021) (“Based on the foregoing,
the FAC will remain the operative complaint in this action and the Court will substitute John Doe
Defendants 1 and 2 for the named defendants Plaintiff identifies.”) (citing Altheide v. Williams,
No. 2:17-cv-02821-JCM-BNW, 2020 WL 42462 * 1 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2020) (same).
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request to substitute (Doc. 70) is GRANTED;
2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to ADD the following individuals to the docket
for this action:
a. J. Wisley
b. R. Ruggles
c. M. Capello
d. S. Hicks; and
3. Limited discovery is now closed. The Court will issue a separate order regarding
service of process concerning the newly added defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026 ___________________ _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE