(PC) Mejia v. Espinoza

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

8 JOSUE A. MEJIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01381-KES-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON 11 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS (1) FOR ESPINOZA, et al., EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE AGAINST 12 DEFENDANTS ESPINOZA, PANGALDAN, Defendants. AYALA, GUITERREZ, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN 13 DOE 2, AND LOPEZ; (2) FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 14 JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2; (3) FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO 15 SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS AGAINST DEFENDANT PANGALDAN; AND (4) 16 FOR RETALIATION AGAINST DEFENDANT GOMEZ 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 7, 12) 18

19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 20 21 Plaintiff Josue A. Mejia, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 22 civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 6). Generally, Plaintiff alleges 23 that various prison officials used excessive force against him, denied him medical care, and 24 retaliated against him. 25 On December 11, 2024, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff 26 sufficiently stated claims (1) for excessive use of force against Defendants Espinoza, 27 Pangaldan, Ayala, Guiterrez, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Lopez; (2) for failure to protect 28 against Defendants Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2; (3) for deliberate indifference to serious 1 || medical needs against Defendant Pangaldan; and (4) for retaliation against Defendant Gomez. 2 || (ECF No. 7). The Court explained why the complaint otherwise failed to state any claims and 3 || gave Plaintiff thirty days to either file (1) a notice to go forward on his cognizable claims, (2) 4 || an amended complaint; or (3) a notice to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a 5 || district judge. On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wants to proceed 6 |] only on the claims that the Court found cognizable. (ECF No. 12). 7 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 7), and 8 || because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed on the claims that the Court 9 || found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 12), IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims 10 || and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims (1) for excessive use of force against 11 || Defendants Espinoza, Pangaldan, Ayala, Guiterrez, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Lopez; (2) for 12 || failure to protect against Defendants Jane Doe | and Jane Doe 2; (3) for deliberate indifference 13 || to serious medical needs against Defendant Pangaldan; and (4) for retaliation against Defendant 14 || Gomez. 15 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 16 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 17 || thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 18 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 20 || pages, including exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 21 || time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 22 |} (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 241! Dated: _ January 6, 2025 [sf hey □□ 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28