1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER LEATHAM, No. 2:24-cv-02150 DC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SOLANO COUNTY, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is in pretrial criminal custody and proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 18 under

. On August 27, 2025, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s complaint and 19 gave her the option of proceeding on cognizable claims or filing an amended complaint. ECF No. 20 8. Plaintiff elected to amend. ECF No. 9. On September 24, 2025, the undersigned issued an 21 order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 10. The order 22 advised that if plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the case will proceed on the original 23 complaint, as screened, and it will be recommended that defendant Duffield and plaintiff’s 24 conditions of confinement and mail access claims be dismissed without prejudice.

. 25 More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 26 Accordingly, this case will proceed on the complaint as screened and the court will order service 27 of the complaint. By findings and recommendations, the court will recommend dismissal of the 28 non-cognizable claims. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. In accordance with the screening order dated August 27, 2025 (ECF No. 8), 3 service is appropriate for defendants Solano County, Wellpath, Woodford, Bettencourt, and 4 Hagen. 5 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff five (5) USM-285 forms, one summons, 6 an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed August 9, 2024 (ECF No. 1). 7 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 8 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 9 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 10 b. One completed summons; 11 c. One completed USM-285 form for each of the following defendants: (1) 12 Solano County; (2) Wellpath; (3) Woodford; (4) Bettencourt; and (5) Hagen; 13 and 14 d. Six (6) copies of the endorsed complaint filed August 9, 2024. 15 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of 16 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 17 Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 18 without payment of costs. 19 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons set forth in the screening order 20 dated August 27, 2025 (ECF No. 8 at 7-8, 11-12), defendant Duffield and plaintiff’s Fourteenth 21 Amendment conditions of confinement claim and First Amendment mail access claim be 22 dismissed without prejudice. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 //// 1 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | DATED: December 2, 2025 SEAN C. RIORDAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28