Tremaine Carroll v. State of California, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00974
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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 GRANTING MOTION ONLY TO LIMITED EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF IS 13 v. GRANTED EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (Doc. 52) 15 Defendant. FEBRUARY 16, 2026, DEADLINE 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tremaine Carroll’s one-page motion requesting 18 various forms of relief filed January 9, 2025 . (Doc. No. 52). Citing her indigent status, Plaintiff 19 seeks an extension of time to file an amended complaint, appointment of counsel, return of legal 20 documents and unpublished manuscript, and the return of the $420 filing fee withdrawn from her 21 inmate account. 22 On December 22, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s operative amended complaint, 23 found it failed to state a cognizable federal claim, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended 24 complaint by January 16, 2026. (Doc. 51). Other than pointing to her indigent status, Plaintiff 25 does not provide any reason why she requires additional time to file an amended complaint. 26 Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the fact that she is incarcerated, the Court sua sponte finds 27 good cause and will grant Plaintiff a further 30-day extension of time to file an amended 28 complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 1 Plaintiff next asserts the Court erred in releasing her former counsel and failing to appoint 2 replacement counsel. Plaintiff also states that Alain Browning “was never” her counsel.1 On July 3 2, 2025, the previous assigned magistrate judge, granted a motion to withdraw from the case to 4 the Justice Firm, Mr. Virgilio and Mr. Darden. (Doc. No. 41). To the extent Plaintiff claims the 5 former magistrate erred in dismissing her former counsel without sua sponte appointing new 6 counsel, Plaintiff should have filed a motion for reconsideration to the district court under Federal 7 Rule of Civil Procedure 72. A Rule 72 motion must be filed without 14-days of the order to 8 which Plaintiff assigns error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Thus, a Rule 72 motion would be untimely at 9 this date. Separately, the Court notes that previous counsel was not appointed for Plaintiff. 10 Instead, counsel initiated this action on behalf of Plaintiff. To the extent Plaintiff seeks 11 appointment of counsel, Plaintiff must file a motion seeking court-appointed counsel and show 12 “exceptional circumstances.” United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1181 (9th Cir. 1978). 13 Regarding Plaintiff’s request for the return of her legal files, the Court explicitly directed 14 former counsel in both its July 2, 2025 and October 27, 2025 orders that counsel must comply 15 with all federal, state and local rules related to withdrawing from a case, including but not limited 16 to, ensuring that Plaintiff’s case file and any other records from this matter are timely sent to 17 Plaintiff. (Docs. 41, ¶ 2; 49, ¶ 4). Counsel from The Justice Firm confirmed that as of October 1, 18 2025, “the file has already been transferred to the client.” (Doc. 47 at 7). 19 Concerning Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of the monies withdrawn from her 20 inmate account, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted. 21 (Docs. 12, 14). Consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff is required to pay the 22 filing fee. 28 U.S.C § 1915(b) (“the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 23 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account”). Additionally, the 24 Court assessed only a $350 filing fee. The Court’s financial records reveal Plaintiff has paid 25 $340.38 and has an outstanding balance of $9.62. 26 Finally, the Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim that former counsel failed to return 27 1 On October 27, 2025, this Court confirmed that Attorney Browning and well as the Justice Firm had been 28 relieved of further representation of Plaintiff in this matter. (Doc. 49). 1 | Plaintiff's “unpublished manuscript” to her. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No 52) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein. 4 2. No later than February 16, 2026, Plaintiff must deliver to correctional for mailing one 5 of the following: (a) Second Amended Complaint; (b) a “Notice to Stand on the 6 Amended Complaint” subject to the undersigned recommending the district court to 7 dismiss the Complaint for the reasons stated in this Order; or (c) a “Notice of 8 Voluntary Dismissal Complaint Under Rule 41” stating she wishes to voluntarily 9 dismiss this action without prejudice to avoid a strike. 10 3. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 52) is otherwise DENIED. 11 4. If Plaintiff fails to ttmely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of time to 12 comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action for □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action. 14 1S Dated: _ January 14, 2026 law Zh. fareh Zackte 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28