Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243-2/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

PATRICK LORENZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS 

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(Doc. 10) 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO 

SCREENING ORDER WITHIN 21 DAYS

(Doc. 11)

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 failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 4-14.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/23/24 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

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.) 

On January 18, 2024, after 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, Plaintiff filed a document titled 

“Request for Extension of Time; and Notification of Address Change.” (Doc. 11.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In his request for an extension of time, Plaintiff states he received the Court’s screening 

order on or about December 15, 2023, and is now housed at the California State Prison in 

Lancaster. (Doc. 11 at 1.) Plaintiff states he was on a Modified Program-Quarantine due to “the 

spike of COVID 19 cases” in the building between December 18, 2023 and January 3, 2024. (Id.) 

Plaintiff states he in a participant in the Enhanced Outpatient Program and qualifies for staff 

assistance as a result. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states he now has access to the law library and staff 

assistance, and seeks a 21-day extension of time, (id.), presumably to respond to the Court’s 

screening order.

The Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action issued 

January 18, 2024. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is dated and signed January 17, 

2024, and predates issuance of the Court’s findings. (Doc. 11 at 2.) Although Plaintiff’s request 

was submitted beyond the 21 days provided for in the First Screening Order, Plaintiff was 

transferred from a facility in San Diego to the state prison in Lancaster during that same period, 

making compliance with the 21-day deadline difficult due to housing restrictions. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time will be granted and he shall be afforded the 

opportunity to respond to the First Screening Order issued December 12, 2023. However, the 

Court notes it finds no “delay” as alleged by Plaintiff, as Plaintiff’s request indicates he received 

the screening order on December 15, 2023--three days after its issuance. Although Plaintiff states 

he sent a Notice of Change of Address to the Court on some unidentified prior date and references 

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/23/24 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

a “mishap[] of the address change,” this Court did not receive any Notice of Change of Address 

until its receipt of the instant motion. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 18, 2024 (Doc. 10) are 

VACATED; and 

2. Plaintiff SHALL comply with the Court’s First Screening Order within 21 days of 

the date of service of this order. 

WARNING: If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend 

this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 3