Babb

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDERSON PURNELL THURSTON, Case No. 2:25-cv-1925-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BABB, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action against two Yuba 19 County Sherriff’s Deputies, Babb and Dutt.1 His allegations that the defendants violated his 20 Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him adequate conditions of confinement are sufficient 21 to proceed past screening. By contrast, his equal protection claim is non-cognizable as currently 22 articulated. Plaintiff may proceed only with his cognizable claims, or he may delay serving any 23 defendant and file another amended complaint. 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 26 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 27 1 Plaintiff has filed a request to update the spelling of Duff’s name to…