Whitfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 STEVEN WHITFIELD, Case No. 1:24-cv-00581-JLT-CDB

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

RESPOND

v. (Doc. 4) ASHOK PARMAR and CENTRAL

BAKERSFIELD PAIN MANAGEMENT, 21- DAY DEADLINE

12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter is before the Court on the filing by Plaintiff Steven Whitfield (“Plaintiff” or “Whitfield”) of a first amended complaint (Doc. 4) following the Court’s screening of the initial complaint and directing a response by Plaintiff. See (Doc. 3). Whitfield, who is proceeding pro se, did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The statute requires federal courts to screen IFP complaints and dismiss the case if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In his first…