Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00421-2/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

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

THETHESIUS HOSEA MOSLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZEPP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00421-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT 

ZEPP WAS DELIBERATELY 

INDIFFERENT TO HIS SERIOUS 

MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF 

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

(ECF Nos. 9, 11)

ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Thethesius Hosea Mosley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 21, 

2023, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for treatment of a knee 

injury. (ECF No. 1). 

On May 17, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that only 

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Zepp should proceed. (ECF No. 9). 

The Court explained why the complaint otherwise failed to state any claims and gave Plaintiff 

thirty days to either file (1) a notice to go forward on his cognizable claims, (2) an amended 

complaint; or (3) a notice to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge. On 

June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice stating “that he wishes to proceed only on his deliberate 

indifference claim against Defendant Zepp.” (ECF No. 11) (capitalization omitted). 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 06/27/23 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 9), and 

because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed on the claim that the Court 

found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 11), IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims 

and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Zepp.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)). 

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 06/27/23 Page 2 of 2