Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01969-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK LORENZ JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-1969 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that 

plaintiff’s claims against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin stated a claim while his 

claims against defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery were insufficient. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was 

given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims 

against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin. Id. at 7. He was further advised that if he 

failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing 

to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal without prejudice of 

defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery. Id. at 10. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to 

how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise 

responded to the order. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01969-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the September 18, 

2024, Screening Order (ECF No. 7 at 5, 6, 10), defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 21, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01969-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 2