(PC) Eastman v. State of CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01602 TLN SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 16, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that 19 plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to 20 protect claim against defendants Roderick and Doe 1. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was given the 21 option to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10.) 22 On June 27, 2025, plaintiff provided a notice of election to proceed on his claims as 23 screened. (ECF No. 20.) But on the same day, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an 24 amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) Because these requests are contradictory, the action cannot 25 move forward. Therefore, within 30 days of the date of service of this…