Michael Thomas v. Carlo Fernandes, Physician, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL THOMAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00404-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE JOHN DOE 13 v. DEFENDANTS AND DIRECTING CLERK TO CORRECT CAPTION OF CASE CARLO FERNANDES, PHYSICIAN, et al., (Doc. No. 22) Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Michael Thomas, a pro se prisoner, initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 7). On June 11, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide written notice identifying John Does 1-30 within one-hundred and twenty days for the Court to effect service of process. (Doc. No. 10 at 5-6). Plaintiff timely filed “Motion to substitute herein named individuals in place of John Does 1-30, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) “SMART” Committee members, in compliance with this Court’s July 11 Order.

24 (Doc. No. 22, “Motion”). Plaintiff identifies the Doe defendants as M. Arca, E. Conanan, F.

25 Igbinosa, E. dos Santos-Chen, P. Tafoya, B. Stepke, A. Ola, J. Bal, M. and Boparai, all members CDCR “SMART” Committee. (Id. at 2).

27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Relation Back of Amendments, provides: 28 (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to the 1 pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 2 (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and 3 if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be 5 prejudiced in defending on the merits; and 6 (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for mistake concerning the proper 7 party’s identity.

8 Id. (emphasis in original).

9 Although Plaintiff did not submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint identifying the defendants by name within the pleading as contemplated in Rule 15(c) and Local Rule 220, the June 15 Order did not require him to do so. (See Doc. No. 10); see also Local Rule 220 (E.D. Ca.

12 2019)(stating in relevant part that “changed pleadings” shall refer to the amended and supplemental pleadings and unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by the court order shall be typed and filed so that it is complete in itself without preference to the prior or superseded pleading. . . .”)(emphasis added).

17 A review of the FAC shows Plaintiff identifies “SMART” Committee members, John Does 1-30, with sufficient facts regarding their involvement in the alleged deliberate indifference at issue. (Doc. No. 7 at 3, 5). The deliberate indifference issue appears to arise out of decisions and actions that the committee made together. (Id. at 14-23)(alleging that members of the SMART Committee repeatedly denied Plaintiff’s surgical requests, relied on false medical evaluations provided by Kern Valley State Prison medical personnel and failed to adequately review Plaintiff’s complete medical history before making their determinations). Thus, a filing a Second Amended Complaint to merely substitute the names of the “SMART” Committee members for the named Defendants is unnecessary.

26 Based on the foregoing, the FAC will remain the operative complaint in this action and the Court will substitute John Doe Defendants 1-30 for the nine named defendants Plaintiff identifies. See, Altheide v. Williams, Case No. 2:17-cv-02821JCM-BNW, 2020 WL 42462 * 1 | (D. Nevada Jan. 3, 2020) (similarly treating previously filed complaint as the operative complaint | but substituting named-defendants for the John Doe Defendants). The Court further directs the | Clerk to correct the caption of the case to reflect the substitution of John Doe 1-30 for the named | Defendants.

5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 22) seeking to amend the Complaint to substitute the | Does 1-30, “SMART” Committee defendants. is GRANTED and M. Arca, E. Conanan, F.

8 | Igbinosa, E. dos Santos-Chen, P. Tafoya, B. Stepke, A. Ola, J. Bal, and M. Boparai shall be | substituted for John Doe Defendants.

10 2. The Clerk shall correct the caption to add the names of these substituted Defendants. '? | Dated: _ September 19. 2025 Mihaw. fareh Yack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE