Woods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM SHAW, No. 2:20-cv-1980 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 WOODS, et al.. ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 18 forth below, this court finds plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against defendant Shearer but 19 has failed to state claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity 20 to either amend his first amended complaint or proceed on the cognizable claim in his current 21 complaint. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff initially filed this action in the Fresno division of this court. On screening, the 24 previously assigned magistrate judge found plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment claim against 25 defendant Shearer but failed to state a claim against defendant Woods. Plaintiff then sought to 26 amend his complaint. At that…