Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F. Supp. 2d 43

Plaintiff alleges overdetention and related claims at DC Detention Facility against DC and John Does 1-5.
Discovery schedule set deadlines for fact and expert discovery, with August 15, 2010 deadline to name John Doe defendants.
Plaintiff failed to name or substitute John Does by deadline and did not seek extensions.
District Court previously stayed overdetention claim (Count I) and limited discovery.
Plaintiff amended his complaint to name John Does did not occur within discovery timeframe, and no good cause shown for late naming or service.
Court now dismisses Counts II and III as to John Does 1-5 and dismisses John Does 1-5 for failure to name/serve under Rule 4(m).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether John Does 1–5 should be dismissed for failure to name/serve.	Says discovery prevented identification of John Does; DC failed to provide names.	No timely naming; no good cause shown; discovery closed; extension not granted.	Yes; John Does 1–5 dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
Whether Counts II and III should be dismissed as to John Does 1–5.	Unknown defendants should be allowed to proceed until identified.	Unknown defendants must be dismissed when not identified or served; no extension granted.	Yes; Counts II and III dismissed without prejudice as to John Does 1–5.

Estate of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35 (8th Cir. 1995) (unknown defendants may proceed if identity can be ascertained after discovery)