Leatherman

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FORREST C. TAYLOR, No. 2:25-cv-1100 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEATHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On September 30, 2025, the Court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and granted 19 plaintiff thirty days to amend his pleading or to elect to proceed on his potentially cognizable 20 Eighth Amendment claims against defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod, D. Heinkel, and A. 21 Konrad; and a First Amendment claim against defendant J. Leatherman. (ECF No. 24.) That 22 same day, plaintiff signed a second amended complaint, without benefit of the Court’s screening 23 order. (ECF No. 26.) Then, on October 14, 2025, after plaintiff received the screening order, 24 plaintiff elected to proceed with his First and Eighth Amendment claims, as proposed in the 25 screening order. (ECF No. 27.) With his election form, plaintiff filed a document styled 26 …