1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD REVELEZ, 11 Case No. 22-cv-01738 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE NOTICE IN RESPONSE v. 13 TO CDCR NOTICE REGARDING

UNIDENTIFIED DEFENDANTS

14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 (Docket No. 24)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42

against defendants at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) where the 20 underlying incident occurred. Dkt. Nos. 1, 12. The Court found the pleadings stated a 21 cognizable failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Tomaso and Whitney, and ordered 22 service. Dkt. No. 15. The CDCR filed a first notice of Report of E-Service Waiver on 23 April 7, 2023, indicating that neither of these Defendants could be identified. Dkt. No. 16. 24 The Court ordered service again, with additional information to aid in the identification of 25 Defendants. Dkt. No. 17. The CDCR’s subsequent responses indicated that a search for 26 these two Defendants was conducted with no success: “unable to find any employee with 27 those last names.” Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. 1 unserved Defendants. Dkt. No. 21. In the same order, the Litigation Coordinator at SQSP 2 was requested to assist in identifying the Defendants based on information contained in the 3 pleadings.

On August 22, 2023, the CDCR filed another response stating as follows: 4 “I reviewed SQ incident log SQP-003-18-03-0105, and was unable to locate Sergeants by 5 the name of D’Tamaso or Whitney. The only Sergeant listed on this incident is A. 6 Cuevas.” Dkt. No. 24. On the same day, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time 7 to provide more information for the unserved Defendants. Dkt. No. 25. 8 In light of the information provided by the CDCR, Plaintiff must file a notice 9 regarding how he wishes to proceed in this matter. He may either continue to attempt to 10 locate Defendants D’Tamaso and Whitney and provide the information by October 18, 11 2023, or file another amended complaint to remove Defendants D’Tamaso and Whitney 12 from this action and replace Sgt. A. Cuevas as the appropriate Defendant in this matter. 13 If Plaintiff chooses the first course of action, he must file notice that he wishes to 14 proceed against the originally named Defendants D’Tamaso and Whitney no later than 15 twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. Then he will have until October 16 18, 2023, to file the necessary information for these Defendants. If by that deadline 17 Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the information sufficient for the Marshal to serve 18 the complaint, his claims against Defendants D’Tamaso and Whitney shall be dismissed 19 without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without 20 further notice to Plaintiff. 21 In the alternative, if Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint to name 22 Sgt. A. Cuevas as the proper Defendant, he shall file a notice and a second amended 23 complaint that supersedes the original and supplemental no later than twenty-eight (28) 24 days from the date this order is filed. The second amended complaint must include the 25 caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. 22-01738 BLF (PR), and the 26 words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form 1 || proceed. The second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, 2 || these being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 3 || F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in the second 4 || amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in the second amended 5 complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th 6 || Cir. 1992). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. g || Dated: __August 30, 2023 flinfhacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN ? United States District Judge 10 11 12

2B 15

16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Directing Pl to File Notice Re CDCR Notice PRO-SE\BLF\CR.22\01738Revelez_notice.unidentified-Defs 26 27