(PC) Eastman v. State of CA

Opinion

JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01602 TLN SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 16, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Roderick and Doe 1. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10.) On June 27, 2025, plaintiff provided a notice of election to proceed on his claims as screened. (ECF No. 20.) But on the same day, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) Because these requests are contradictory, the action cannot move forward. Therefore, within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall resubmit the notice of election and clarify whether he intends to move forward on his claims as screened or to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to amend, the undersigned will set a deadline to file the amended complaint by separate order. Also on June 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce the full || and unredacted name of defendant Doe | and various records relating to his claims against defendants Doe 1 and Roderick. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiffs motion is premature. The action is still in the screening stage and, consequently, the undersigned has not ordered service on any defendants. “In the interest of judicial economy, the Court typically does not begin the discovery process until the operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants have been served, and those defendants have answered the complaint.” See Thomas v. Doe, No. 1:24-cv- 1319 HBK PC, 2025 WL 1446488, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2025). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion is denied without prejudice to being resubmitted at the appropriate time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 21) is granted. 2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall submit the attached “Second Notice of Election” and clarify whether he intends to move forward on his claims as screened or file an amended complaint. 3. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is denied as premature. DATED: July 1, 2025 md SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01602 TN SCR P Plaintiff, v. SECOND NOTICE OF ELECTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Check one: _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Doe 1 and Roderick. Plaintiff understands that by choosing this option, (1) the remaining defendants will be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a); and (2) Doe 1 cannot be served until plaintiff has identified him through discovery and filed a motion to amend the complaint. _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. DATED:_______________________

Jeffrey Todd Eastman Plaintiff pro se