Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTWOINE BEALER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00284-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER v. WARDEN, Defendant 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this case against defendants under section 1983 for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. His first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for screening purposes, but I will give him leave to amend. I will deny 24 1 I previously determined that an initial version of this complaint stated, for screening 25 purposes, valid claims against the Doe defendants for the claims at issue, and I gave plaintiff the opportunity to proceed on those allegations. ECF No. 6. He did not elect to do so, and instead 26 filed an amended complaint. Today’s order, unlike my prior order, does not allow service. I take a different approach here for two reasons: First, plaintiff’s new complaint is somewhat less detailed than its predecessor, which barely alleged enough to imply that defendants’ actions…