(PC) Pope v. McDonald, 2:13-cv-01896

Prisoner Joseph Pope filed a § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force at High Desert State Prison but named no individual officers. The court screened and dismissed claims against the named defendants and allowed amendment.
The court extended Pope’s deadline to file an amended complaint to June 16, 2014; Pope then moved on June 2, 2014, seeking discovery (a work-assignment log) to identify the officers, a fee waiver, and an amended-complaint form.
The court noted discovery normally opens only after a complaint survives screening and defendants have appeared; here no named defendant remained for the usual discovery channels.
The court recognized Wakefield’s rule that plaintiffs should be allowed to discover Doe identities, but distinguished Wakefield because there those known defendants had been served and civil discovery was available.
The court ordered the clerk to mail Pope a copy of his original complaint and attachments and an amended-complaint form, denied the discovery motion without prejudice, reiterated pleading standards for § 1983 amendments, and refused to waive the filing fee entirely. Pope was given 30 days to file an amended complaint or face a recommendation of dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should order discovery (work-assignment log) pre-answer to identify Doe officers	Pope: needs log to identify unnamed officers to amend complaint	Court/Defendants: discovery generally opens only after complaint survives screening and defendants respond; no served defendants here	Denied without prejudice; clerk ordered to provide complaint copies and form so plaintiff can amend and potentially identify defendants later
Whether Wakefield exception allows immediate discovery here	Pope: Wakefield permits discovery to identify Doe defendants	Court: Wakefield applies when known defendants are served and discovery channels exist; not applicable where no surviving named defendants	Court distinguished Wakefield and declined to permit immediate discovery under it
Whether clerk should provide plaintiff materials to assist amendment	Pope: lacked his original complaint after transfer and needs it to draft amendment	No opposition; court control	Clerk ordered to mail plaintiff his original complaint with attachments and an amended-complaint form
Whether filing fee may be fully waived	Pope: requested a "fee waiver"	Court: already granted in forma pauperis under lenient conditions but has no authority to waive the fee entirely	Denied; court cannot waive filing fee altogether

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.) (Doe-identification through discovery where known defendants are served)
Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court abuses discretion by denying leave to amend where naming correct defendant could cure defects)
Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir.) (complaint must give fair notice and state claims succinctly)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (U.S. Supreme Court) (no § 1983 liability absent affirmative link between defendant and deprivation)
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (9th Cir.) (need for connection between defendant and alleged wrong)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir.) (affirmative link requirement for § 1983 liability)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court) (pleading standards reject vague and conclusory allegations)
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir.) (vague, conclusory allegations insufficient)
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.) (conditions must be alleged to show constitutional deprivation)
Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.) (official liability possible for policy-makers)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. Supreme Court) (municipal liability requires direct causal link between policy/custom and deprivation)