Simmons v. Dist. of D.C., Civil Action No. 07–493 (RCL).

Decision Date05 January 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 07–493 (RCL).
Citation750 F.Supp.2d 43
PartiesDaniel SIMMONS, Plaintiff,v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Joan Augusta Harvill, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Ellen A. Efros, Jacques P. Lerner, Robert Hildum, Office of the Attorney General, Chad Wayne Copeland, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is defendants' John Does 1–5 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, ECF No. 60, the opposition thereto, ECF No. 61, the reply brief, ECF No. 62, applicable law, and the entire record, the Court will grant the motion for the reasons stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has alleged that when he was incarcerated at the D.C. Detention Facility, defendants the District of Columbia and John Does 1–5 violated his rights. Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in 2007. Compl., Mar. 15, 2007, ECF No. 1. The Court later dismissed all of the counts for failure to state a claim, except those relating to plaintiff's overdetention, which the Court stayed pending further proceedings in Barnes v. District of Columbia, Civil No. 06–315 (D.D.C.). Mem. Order 6, 10–11, Mar. 27, 2008, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, pleading four counts: (I) overdetention in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (II) an unreasonable body-cavity search in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (III) common-law negligence in overdetaining plaintiff, housing plaintiff with a convicted murderer, and conducting an unreasonable body-cavity search; and (IV) common-law negligent supervision, training, and hiring in overdetaining plaintiff, housing plaintiff with a convicted murderer, and conducting an unreasonable body-cavity search. Am. Compl., Mar. 10, 2009, ECF No. 29. Defendant the District of Columbia filed a motion for partial summary judgment, July 27, 2010, ECF No. 53, which the Court granted in part and denied in part, Order, Nov. 9, 2010, 750 F.Supp.2d 36, 2010 WL 4481447 (D.D.C.2010), ECF No. 56. Because only the District of Columbia moved for partial summary judgment, the Court did not consider claims against John Does 1–5. See Mem. Op. 2 n. 1, Nov. 9, 2010, ECF No. 57.

Defendants John Does 1–5 now move for dismissal, or, in the alternative, summary judgment as to Counts II and III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. John Does 1–5 do not move for dismissal or summary judgment as to Count I, because this overdetention claim has been stayed, and they do not move for dismissal or summary judgment as to Count IV, because that Count only applies to the District of Columbia, not to John Does 1–5. On December 14, 2010, the Court granted leave for this motion to be filed. Order, Dec. 14, 2010, ECF No. 59.

II. ANALYSIS

The September 4, 2009, scheduling order in this case dictates, in relevant part, that fact discovery is to be completed within 120 days of the order, that plaintiff's expert report(s) and information shall be served no later than 45 days after the close of fact discovery, that defendants' expert report(s) and information shall be served no later than 75 days after the close of fact discovery, that all discovery on the parties' experts shall close 105 days after the close of fact discovery, and that plaintiff has leave to file amendments to the First Amended Complaint to name the John Doe defendants until thirty days after the close of discovery. Order, Sept. 4, 2009, ECF No. 37. After several extensions of time, the Court ultimately ordered that fact discovery close on April 2, 2010, and that all associated deadlines that relied upon the close of fact discovery for their calculation be similarly extended. Order, Feb. 16, 2010, ECF No. 52. Based on those two orders, the scheduling in this case was as follows: close of fact discovery: April 2, 2010; service of plaintiff's expert report(s) and information: May 17, 2010; service of defendants' expert report(s) and information: June 16, 2010; close of expert discovery: July 16, 2010; leave to file amendments to the First Amended Complaint to name the John Doe defendants: August 15, 2010. Neither party has filed a motion for extension of any of these deadlines.

Under this timetable, plaintiff was permitted to file amendments to the First Amended Complaint to name the John Doe defendants on or before August 15, 2010. Plaintiff failed to do so. Only in his opposition to the pending motion does plaintiff attempt to excuse this failure, when he states: “As Defendant well knows, Plaintiff has not been able to identify the John Doe Defendants through Discovery. Defendant did not provide the names of the correctional officers involved in the events Plaintiff complained of making it impossible for Plaintiff to identify the John Doe Defendants.” Pl.'s Opp'n 1. Defendants John Does 1–5 note in their reply that [plaintiff] never complained of any purported deficiencies in the District of Columbia's discovery responses, never moved to compel additional information, and never deposed any District of Columbia employee or representative.” Defs.' Reply 1. The Court agrees with defendants John Does 1–5. Both fact and expert discovery are now complete in this case, and plaintiff never indicated any deficiency in discovery. Even after the completion of discovery, plaintiff has still indicated that it is “impossible” to name the John Doe defendants. Unfortunately for plaintiff, the time has now run to name the John Doe defendants.

Plaintiff may bring an action against unknown John Doe defendants, but plaintiff must substitute named defendants for those unknown defendants after the completion of discovery. As the Eighth Circuit has held: [A]n action may proceed against a party whose name is unknown if the complaint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Barnes v. Dist. of D.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 24 Junio 2011
    ...Court stayed Simmons' claims relating to his overdetention pending further proceedings in the instant case. Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F.Supp.2d 43, 44 (D.D.C.2011). 10. Upon review, the Court takes notice of the fact that it intended to dismiss plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim,......
  • Bloem v. Unknown Dep't of the Interior Emps., Civil Action No. 11–2155(JEB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 4 Febrero 2013
    ...unknown John Doe defendants, but ... must substitute named defendants after the completion of discovery.” Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F.Supp.2d 43, 45 (D.D.C.2011). “[A]n action may proceed against a party whose name is unknown if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to ......
  • Leonard v. George Wash. Univ. Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 7 Agosto 2017
    ...any individual defendants, but this omission is not fatal at this pre-discovery phase of the proceedings. See Simmons v. District of Columbia , 750 F.Supp.2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 2011) ("Plaintiff may bring an action against unknown John Doe defendants, but plaintiff must substitute named defenda......
  • Joyner v. Cnty. of Cayuga
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 17 Abril 2020
    ...Plaintiff would then be required to amend his complaint to reflect the Doe defendants' identities. See Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding that a plaintiff "may bring an action against unknown John Doe defendants, but plaintiff must substitute name......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT