1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS DOE 13 v. DEFENDANTS

14 MOORE, et al., (Doc. 21)

15 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT

17 (Doc. 22)

18 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CORRECTING THE NAME OF A 19 PREVIOUSLY MISIDENTIFIED DEFENDANT AND SUBSTITUTING 20 ACTUAL NAMES FOR DOE DEFENDANTS WITHIN 30 DAYS 21

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS’ 22 MOTION TO DISMISS FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025, TO BE MOOT 23 (Doc. 23) 24

25 26 Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 27 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. // 1 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 3, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Following screening, the Court 3 found Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 4 needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and 5 Vasquez. (See Docs. 7 11, & 13.)1 6 On May 16, 2025, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff Ninety Days Within 7 Which to Identify Doe 1 and Doe 2. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff was directed to “substitute these 8 Defendants’ actual names by filing a ‘notice of substitution’” within 90 days. (Id. at 3.) That same 9 date, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate, directing service of process be 10 effected upon Defendants M. Bean, Crawford, E. McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and Vasquez. (Doc. 11 15.) 12 When more 90 days passed without any response from Plaintiff, on August 22, 2025, the 13 undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Doe Defendants. (Doc. 21.) The 14 parties were advised that any objections were to be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 3-4.) No 15 objections were filed. 16 Thereafter, on September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Permission to file an 17 Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 22.) The motion is signed yet not dated. (Id. at 3.) An attached Proof 18 of Service by Mail indicates the motion was served by “Gina Gonzales” on September 20, 2025. 19 (Id. at 4.) 20 On September 24, 2025, Defendants Bean, Crawford, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and 21 Vasquez filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 23.) 22 As of this date, neither Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint nor Defendants’ 23 motion to dismiss have been opposed. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 The Findings and Recommendations Will Be Vacated 26 As indicated above, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss 27 1 The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s original complaint and Defendants Dunn, Johnson, Perez, and Sanchez were 1 the Doe Defendants on August 22, 2025. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff did not file objections. Given the 2 discussion that follows, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations. 3 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 4 Briefly stated, Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to amend his complaint “to correct 5 the name of a previously misidentified defendant and to substitute named individuals for 6 previously designated ‘John Doe’ defendants.” (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff states the proposed 7 amendments do not alter “the factual allegations or legal theories of the original complaint.” (Id.) 8 Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion and the time to do so has passed. 9 Applicable Legal Standards and Analysis 10 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: 11 (a) Amendments Before Trial. 12 (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its 13 pleading once as a matter of course no later than: 14 (A) 21 days after serving it, or 15 (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days 16 after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is 17 earlier. (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its 18 pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 19 20 Initially, the Court notes Plaintiff did not submit a proposed first amended complaint with 21 the September 22, 2025, motion as required by the Court's Local Rules. See Local Rule 137(c) 22 (“If filing a document requires leave of court, such as an amended complaint after the time to 23 amend as a matter of course has expired, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be filed 24 as an exhibit to moving papers seeking such leave .... If the Court grants the motion, counsel shall 25 file and serve the document in accordance with these Rules ....”). Regardless of that procedural 26 defect, the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion. 27 In evaluating a motion to amend the complaint, the Court considers whether amendment (1) would prejudice the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in 1 litigation; or (4) is futile. Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2 2003) (citing Foman v. Davis,

(1962)). Courts assign the greatest weight to “the 3 consideration of prejudice to the opposing party,” the prejudice-showing burden resting on the 4 opposing party.

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman 5 factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

6 Here, the Court finds there is little to no prejudice to the opposing parties where the 7 litigation has only recently commenced and Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. 8 Further, it finds the motion is not sought it bad faith. As Plaintiff explains, he intends to amend 9 his complaint “to correct the name of a previously misidentified defendant and to substitute 10 named individuals for previously designated ‘John Doe’ defendants” without altering to “the 11 factual allegations or legal theories of the original complaint.”2 While permitting Plaintiff to file a 12 first amended complaint will result is some delay because the amended complaint will be subject 13 to screening,3 the Court finds that circumstance does not present an undue delay for purposes of 14 this litigation. Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments (correcting a misidentification and 15 substituting actual names for Doe Defendants) are not futile. Eminence Capital,

. 16 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. Nevertheless, a few words are caution are 17 warranted. Plaintiff is expected to comply with this Court’s orders and deadlines. (See, e.g., Doc. 18 4 at 5 [First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued 3/6/2023].) 19 When the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff Ninety Days Within Which to Identify Doe 1 20 and Doe 2 on May 16, 2025, Plaintiff was granted 90 days “to discover the identities of Doe 1 and 21 Doe 2, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute these Defendants’ actual names by filing 22 a ‘notice of substitution’” with the Court. (See Doc. 14.) Instead of seeking additional time within 23 which to comply with the Court’s order, Plaintiff allowed the 90-day deadline to lapse without 24 taking any action, resulting in the issuance of findings and recommendations to dismiss the 25 unknown defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings; he could have 26 2 Factual allegations involving former Defendants Dunn, Johnson, Perez and Sanchez would be inappropriate. See fn. 27 1, ante.

3 1 also used that opportunity to seek more time if necessary. Moving forward, Plaintiff should take 2 care to seek an extension of any deadline imposed by the Court if circumstances arise that warrant 3 such an extension. For example, Plaintiff states in the instant motion that “[d]espite multiple 4 requests, [he] only recently obtained” the records revealing the identities of the unknown 5 defendants. (See Doc. 22 at 2.) Because Plaintiff allegedly encountered delays following his 6 requests, it is likely the Court would have found good cause to extend the previously imposed 90- 7 day deadline, to allow Plaintiff more time to conduct limited discovery and to submit a notice of 8 substitution. In any event, the Court admonishes Plaintiff that deadlines will be strictly enforced. 9 Further, Plaintiff is encouraged to review the First Informational Order issued March 6, 2023, to 10 ensure he complies with all applicable Federal and Local Rules, as well as this Court’s orders. 11 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 12 As noted above, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2025 (Doc. 23), 13 making an opposition or statement of non-opposition by Plaintiff due on October 15, 2025, plus 14 time for mailing. As of today’s date, neither an opposition nor statement of non-opposition has 15 been filed. Nevertheless, because the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and allow him to file a 16 first amended complaint, Defendants’ motion to dismiss becomes moot. See Ramirez v. Cnty of 17 San Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 2015). Assuming Plaintiff files a first amended 18 complaint, and after screening and a finding of a cognizable claim or claims by the Court, 19 Defendants may re-file their motion to dismiss or answer the first amended complaint. 20 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 For the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Doe Defendants issued August 22, 23 2025 (Doc. 21) are VACATED; 24 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; 25 3. Plaintiff SHALL file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service 26 of this order. The first amended complaint will be screened in due course; 27 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 1 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this Order will result in the issuance 2 | by the undersigned of a recommendation to dismiss this action, without prejudice, for 3 | Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute. 4 | ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 16, 2025 | Mnnrd Rr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28