1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAINE CARROLL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00974 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CORRECT CAPTION AND PROVIDE COPY OF 13 v. DOCKET SHEET TO PRO SE PLAINITFF 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Tremain Carroll, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, along with other 18 prisoner-plaintiffs, initiated this civil rights action seeking relief under

while 19 represented by counsel. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff proceeds on her First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 20 No. 19).1 On October 27, 2025, the Court clarified that Plaintiff had dismissed her previous 21 counsel of record and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 49). Thus, Plaintiff now 22 proceeds on her First Amended Complaint pro se. (Id.). 23 The Court’s review of the docket reveals that although summons issued, service of the 24 operative complaint has not been effectuated upon any of the defendants as of the date of this 25 Order. (See docket; see also Response of Office of Attorney General to Order to Inform Court 26 Regarding Representation in this Matter, Doc. No. 27). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in 27 1 After reviewing the Complaint, the Court determined that each Plaintiff should proceed 28 separately on their own claims and severed the action. (Doc. No. 1). 1 | forma pauperis, the Court will screen the operative complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 2 | before directing service on any defendant. 3 Further, a preliminary review of the operative complaint reflects that certain defendants 4 | appear on the docket who are not named in the First Amended Complaint. Specifically, 5 | defendants White, Turnin, Dodson, Sousa, and Gensel remain listed on the docket, but are not 6 | identified as defendant in the First Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 10). Thus, these 7 | defendants are considered dismissed from this action and should be terminated from the docket 8 || by the clerk. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc.,

, 1546 9 | (9th Cir. 1989) (party omitted from amended complaint is not a party to the action and the court 10 } lacks jurisdiction over that party); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 11 | (amended complaint supersedes original complaint, thus omission of defendants from amended 12 | complaint render them non-patties). 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. The Court will screed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915A by separate order before directing service on any named defendant. 16 2. The Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect the termination of the following 17 defendants: White, Turnin, Dodson, Sousa, and Gensel. 18 3. The Clerk shall provide pro se Plaintiff with a one-time courtesy copy of the docket 19 sheet in this action with this Order. 20 *I | Dated: _ October 27. 2025 Wiha. □□ fares Back 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28