(PC) Eastman v. State of CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01602 TLN SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 16, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that 19 plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to 20 protect claim against defendants Roderick and Doe 1. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was given the 21 option to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10.) 22 On June 27, 2025, plaintiff provided a notice of election to proceed on his claims as 23 screened. (ECF No. 20.) But on the same day, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an 24 amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) Because these requests are contradictory, the action cannot 25 move forward. Therefore, within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall 26 resubmit the notice of election and clarify whether he intends to move forward on his claims as 27 screened or to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to amend, the undersigned will set a 28 deadline to file the amended complaint by separate order. 1 Also on June 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce the full 2 || and unredacted name of defendant Doe | and various records relating to his claims against 3 || defendants Doe 1 and Roderick. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiffs motion is premature. The action is 4 || still in the screening stage and, consequently, the undersigned has not ordered service on any 5 || defendants. “In the interest of judicial economy, the Court typically does not begin the discovery 6 || process until the operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants have been 7 || served, and those defendants have answered the complaint.” See Thomas v. Doe, No. 1:24-cv- 8 | 1319 HBK PC, 2025 WL 1446488, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2025). Accordingly, plaintiffs 9 || motion is denied without prejudice to being resubmitted at the appropriate time. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 21) is granted. 12 2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall submit the 13 || attached “Second Notice of Election” and clarify whether he intends to move forward on his 14 | claims as screened or file an amended complaint. 15 3. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is denied as premature. 16 || DATED: July 1, 2025 md 18 SEAN C. RIORDAN 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN, No. 2:23-cv-01602 TN SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SECOND NOTICE OF ELECTION 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim 19 against defendants Doe 1 and Roderick. Plaintiff understands that by choosing this 20 option, (1) the remaining defendants will be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a); and (2) Doe 1 cannot be served until 22 plaintiff has identified him through discovery and filed a motion to amend the complaint. 23 24 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 25 26 DATED:_______________________

27 Jeffrey Todd Eastman Plaintiff pro se 28