Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300-2/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

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 19) 

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

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On March 4, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order on plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint. Doc. 14. The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint stated cognizable claims and that this case could proceed 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. 

Id. at 15. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff, within 21 days, to (1) notify the court in writing 

that she did not wish to file a second amended complaint and was willing to proceed on the 

cognizable claims, (2) file a second amended complaint, or (3) file a notice of voluntary 

dismissal. Id. On April 12, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice to proceed on the claims the magistrate 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 3
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

judge had found cognizable. Doc. 17. 

Following the receipt of plaintiff’s notice to proceed on cognizable claims, on April 19, 

2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss certain 

claims and defendants, consistent with plaintiff’s notice. Doc. 19. Specifically, the magistrate 

judge recommended 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, and that the remaining claims in the 

first amended complaint be dismissed. Id. at 2. It was further recommended that defendants 

Gonzales and K. Vang be dismissed from the action. Id. Plaintiff was afforded 14 days within 

which to file any objections. Id. 

On April 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a document titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Doc. 20. This document is dated April 15, 2024, and therefore 

predates the magistrate judge’s April 19, 2024 findings and recommendations to dismiss certain 

claims and defendants. A review of the objections reveals plaintiff was objecting to a nowvacated recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey court orders and failure to 

prosecute. See Docs. 16, 18. In her filing, Plaintiff notes that she sent a “request to proceed on 

claims that were cognizable against Villaboas, Voguel and [Mc]Clain on March 27, 2024,” and 

requests that her case not be dismissed due to her late response to a court order. See Doc. 20. 

Plaintiff’s objections concern now-vacated findings and recommendations to dismiss the case, 

which are no longer pending. Moreover, plaintiff reiterates in her filing her desire to proceed on 

the claims the magistrate judge found cognizable. Accordingly, plaintiff’s filing supports the 

pending findings and recommendations to dismiss certain claims and defendants and proceed on 

cognizable claims.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having reviewed the file, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 19, 2024 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED 

IN FULL; 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. This action PROCEEDS 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;

3. The remaining claims in plaintiff’s first amended complaint are DISMISSED; 

4. Defendants Gonzales and K. Vang are DISMISSED from this action; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 08/26/24 Page 3 of 3