ORDER

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed an opposition. The court previously stayed discovery and denied plaintiff's motion to compel without prejudice because it was not relevant to the issue raised in the summary judgment motion with respect to defendant.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Arana searched his cell and confiscated several items. Plaintiff stated he would file an administrative grievance if the items were not returned and he alleges that defendant responded, "I'll get you for that." Plaintiff states that he was found not guilty at a disciplinary hearing, but defendant had the verdict changed to guilty in retaliation for plaintiff's grievance.

Defendant argues that he did not perform any cell search of plaintiff's cell, does not know plaintiff, and was not working in that housing block in the prison for the entire month when the incident occurred. Defendant contends that his name was erroneously placed in a prison report identifying him as the correctional officer at issue. The prison official who prepared the report confirms it was a mistake. However, the prison official who prepared the report has failed to identify the appropriate correctional officer, nor has defendant or prison officials identified the appropriate correctional officer or issued an amended report. In his opposition to summary judgment plaintiff indicates that if he was provided the correct correctional officer he woould have amended the complaint.

After reviewing the relevant filings in thiis case and in the motion for summary judgment, it is clear that this is not a situation wwhere plaintiff chose a correctional officer's name at random to commence this lawsuit. PPlaintiff relied on the prison report prepared by prison officials and named the correctional officer who was erroneously identified in the report. The court notes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action andd has already attempted to obtain this information but has been unsuccessful. It is well settled that federal courts must construe pro se filings liberally. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

Therefore, within twenty-one days of service of this order, defendant shall insure that the correct identity of the correctional officer involved in this incident whose actions were incorrectly assigned to defendant Arana in the prison report (Docket No. 23 at Ex. A44-A7) be provided to plaintiff and the court. Once this information is provided, plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend his complaint and the court will rule on the summary judgment motion against defendant Arana. Discovery remains stayed for all other issues except for the identity of the correctional offiicer discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.