(PC) Leuelu v. Paul et al, No. 1:2024cv00031 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/25/2024. Tarek Tadros, Chris Chung and Kern Valley State Prison terminated. Action is referred back to Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Leuelu v. Paul et al Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LEUELU, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. No. 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS PAUL, et al., Doc. 16 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 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 20 Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to 21 medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care but failed to 22 state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. Doc. 11. The Court 23 ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to 24 proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court. Id. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff 25 filed a notice that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed on 26 only the cognizable claim against Defendant Paul. Doc. 12. He also provided his current 27 address. Id. 28 Accordingly, on May 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate 2 indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery 3 care. Doc. 16. The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be 4 dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Id. The 5 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 6 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion 7 to appoint counsel on May 21, 2024, which the Court denied. See docket. Plaintiff did not file 8 any objections to the findings and recommendations and the deadline to do so has passed. Id. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, this Court 10 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds 11 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 13 14 15 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 16 Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the 17 Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care; 18 19 20 21 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. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.