Lee v. Doe

Background

Hibah T. Lee, who was detained at the Orange County Jail and proceeded without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants were violating Lee’s constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Lee to proceed without paying filing costs upfront. The defendants named in the caption included two unidentified John Doe defendants, Anthony M. Mele, identified as a corrections administrator, and Sergeant Kiszka, #134.

Service on Identified Defendants

Because Lee was allowed to proceed without paying filing costs upfront, the court explained that Lee could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summonses and complaint. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that, if service was not completed within that period, Lee should request an extension.

The court directed the clerk to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Mele and Sergeant Kiszka, issue summonses, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court also instructed Lee to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the action could be dismissed if Lee failed to do so.

John Doe Defendants

The court declined, at that time, to seek the identities of the John Doe defendants. It explained that Lee had not made allegations against those defendants and had not provided enough information for their attorney or agent to identify them.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the clerk to mail Lee a copy of the order and an information package and to arrange service on Mele and Sergeant Kiszka. The order did not decide the merits of Lee’s constitutional-rights claims and did not identify or seek the identities of the John Doe defendants.