Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA BELLOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On March 4, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 14.) This Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, as well as an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain but fails to allege any 

other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 5-14.) As a result, Plaintiff was 

ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) notify the 

Court in writing that she did not wish to file a second amended complaint and she was willing to 

proceed only on the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Villaboas 

and Voguel, and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 04/19/24 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

against Defendant McClain; the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) 

file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the Second 

Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 15.) 

In an April 12, 2024 filing, dated and signed March 27, 2024, Plaintiff states that she is 

“not going forth with a second amendment and agree(s) to proceed only on the cognizable 

claim(s)” identified by the Court. (Id.) 

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, and Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain, pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED; and 

3. Defendants Gonzales and K. Vang be DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 2