Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00031/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00031-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEUELU,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

Doc. 16

Plaintiff Kenneth Leuelu is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 26, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found 

Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care but failed to 

state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. Doc. 11. The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to 

proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court. Id. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed a notice that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed on

only the cognizable claim against Defendant Paul. Doc. 12. He also provided his current 

address. Id.

Accordingly, on May 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 11/26/24 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

that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate 

indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery 

care. Doc. 16. The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Id. The

findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion 

to appoint counsel on May 21, 2024, which the Court denied. See docket. Plaintiff did not file 

any objections to the findings and recommendations and the deadline to do so has passed. Id.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, this Court 

has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds 

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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2024, (Doc. 16), are ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 8, 2024, (Doc. 1), against

Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims 

upon which relief may be granted; and

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent 

with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2