Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00813-ADA-HBK (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT, IN 

PART, AND DENY, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 72)

Plaintiff Michelle-Lael B. Norsworthy, represented by counsel, initiated this action while 

incarcerated by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 14, 2021. (ECF No. 41.)

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

(ECF No. 60.) Defendants opposed the motion. (ECF No. 62.) On February 27, 2023, the 

Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Court grant, in 

part, and deny, in part, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 72.) The findings and 

recommendations contained notice of a fourteen-day deadline by which the parties could file 

objections for the Court’s consideration. (Id.) Neither party filed objections, and the time to do 

so has expired.

///

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 73 Filed 03/31/23 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2023, (ECF No. 72), 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as 

follows:

a. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff may file a Second 

Amended Complaint including the allegations concerning Count I – an 

Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim – against Defendants Leslie 

Taylor, Chenoa Dill, Sergeant Gibson, Gerardo Garcia-Torres, Officer 

Sholas, and Officer Goethe;

b. The motion is DENIED to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to include in her 

Second Amended Complaint allegations relating to the proposed Count II –

a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against Defendants 

Allison, Espinoza, Pallares, Mitchell, Felix, Haynes, and Villanueva – or 

Count III – an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against 

Defendants Allison, Espinoza, Pallares, Cowing, and Villanueva.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 73 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 2