(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES LEE MATHEWS, No. 2:23-cv-00922-DC-SCR P 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff is a former county inmate who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 15 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to the undersigned 16 pursuant to Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 17 On June 5, 2024, the previously assigned magistrate judge vacated the recommendation 18 that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint after discovering 19 that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) was entered as a new case.1 (ECF No. 13.) The 20 FAC (ECF No. 14) is now before the court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the 21 FAC states a cognizable claim for inadequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment 22 against County of Sacramento but no other cognizable claims. Plaintiff may proceed on the claim 23 stated or may file a…