Whitfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 STEVEN WHITFIELD, Case No. 1:24-cv-00581-JLT-CDB

11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

12 v. STATE A CLAIM AND TO DENY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AS

13 ASHOK PARMAR and CENTRAL MOOT BAKERSFIELD PAIN MANAGEMENT, (Docs. 9, 10) Defendants. 14- DAY DEADLINE

16 17 This matter is before the Court on the filing by Plaintiff Steven Whitfield (“Plaintiff”) of 18 several amended complaints (Docs. 6, 7, 8, 10) following the Court’s screening of both the initial 19 complaint and the first amended complaint and directing a response by Plaintiff. See (Docs. 3, 5). 20 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The statute requires 22 federal courts to screen IFP complaints and dismiss the case if the action is “frivolous or 23 malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or seeks monetary relief 24 against an…