Esquibel v. Rios 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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK ESQUIBEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIE RIOS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-02755-NW
ORDER GRANTING PENDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
Re: ECF No. 53, 54, 57
Before the Court are three pending administrative motions: two filed by Plaintiff and one
filed by Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta. ECF Nos. 53–54, 57. For the following reasons,
the motions are GRANTED.
First, Plaintiff seeks to substitute Brittany Stapleton for Doe Defendant 1, as “one of the
four California Department of Justice agents who is alleged to have come to Plaintiffs home on
October 21, 2024.” ECF No. 53. This “is a true-name correction that does not change the claims
or factual allegations directed to the existing defendants, except for the expressly disclosed
correction to ¶ 61.” See ECF No. 53. Although motions to amend are sometimes substantive,
courts in this District have treated them as administrative matters (and granted them) where the
substitution only changes identifies a true name, does not substantively alter the complaint, and
does so in the early stages of a case. See, e.g., J.G., Individually and on Behalf of Jane Doe v.
Rustic Pathways, No. 22-cv-05666-EJD, ECF No. 38. The administrative motion is unopposed,
and the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
identifying Brittany Stapleton as Doe Defendant 1 and otherwise not altering the claims, as
proposed. The Court does not terminate Defendants Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department’s
and the Honorable Katherine Hansen’s motions to dismiss and instead, in the interest of judicial
Case 5:26-cv-02755-NW Document 60 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Northern District of California
efficiency, deems them to apply to the forthcoming second amended complaint.
Next, Defendant California Attorney General Rob Bonta requests that the deadline to
respond to the FAC be extended to November 10, 2026. ECF No. 54. This administrative motion
is also unopposed, and the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion. Defendant Attorney
General’s response shall be due November 10, 2026.
Finally, Plaintiff moves to deem service upon Defendants Carlos Martinez and Marie Rios
to be satisfied. On September 24, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time for
service upon these Defendants and to permit alternative service via email and United States Postal
Service Ground Advantage or first-class mail to Defendant Martinez’s law office email and
physical addresses. ECF No. 46. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to
apply that order to the FAC. ECF No. 52. The order, however, required Plaintiff to serve these
Defendants “within two court days” of entry of the order. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff explains that he
“was away from home from September 30 through October 5 and received both orders on or about
October 7,” and promptly effected service on October 8, 2026. ECF No. 57 at 2–3; see also ECF
No. 57 at 6–9 (Plaintiff’s Declaration) ¶¶ 5–6. The Court finds good cause, in light of Plaintiff’s
declaration, to deem service satisfied as of October 8, 2026 and GRANTS the motion, except that
the time to file a responsive pleading shall run from the date of this Order. Defendants Martinez
and Rios shall file responsive pleadings by November 6, 2026.
Plaintiff shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on Defendants Martinez and Rios, via
the same methods as provided in ECF No. 46.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-02755-NW Document 60 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2