Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243-3/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

PATRICK LORENZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01243-NODJ-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Patrick Lorenz is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 21, 2023. (Doc. 1.) 

On December 12, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 8.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant Movey and an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 

claim against Defendant Campbell, but fails to allege any other cognizable claim against any 

other defendant. (Id. at 4-14.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of 

the date of service of the order: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a first amended 

complaint and was willing to proceed on his cognizable claims; or (2) file a first amended 

complaint; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 14-15.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/26/24 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

On January 18, 2024, when more than 21 days passed without a response, the Court issued 

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 

and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 10.) 

On January 22, 2024,1 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Extension of Time; 

and Notification of Address Change.” (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff sought an extension of time within 

which to respond to the Court’s screening order following a transfer. (Id.) 

On January 23, 2024, the Court vacated the Findings and Recommendations to dismiss 

this action and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s First Screening Order within 21 days. 

(Doc. 12.) 

On January 24, 2024,2 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice: Notifying The Court 

Plaintiff Does Not Wish To File A First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff states he is 

willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

For all the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 8) issued December 

12, 2023, the Court will recommend this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Defendant Movey and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs claim against Defendant Campbell, in their individual capacities, the 

remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

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

excessive force claim against Defendant Movey and Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Campbell; and 

2. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint against any defendant be DISMISSED.

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 

1 The document is dated and signed January 17, 2024.

2 This document is dated and signed January 21, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/26/24 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

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: January 25, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 3