(PC) Mejia v. Espinoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSUE A. MEJIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01381-KES-EPG (PC) 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 (ECF Nos. 1, 7, 12) 19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS Plaintiff Josue A. Mejia, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 6). Generally, Plaintiff alleges that various prison officials used excessive force against him, denied him medical care, and retaliated against him.

On December 11, 2024, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff sufficiently stated claims (1) for excessive use of force against Defendants Espinoza, Pangaldan, Ayala, Guiterrez, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Lopez; (2) for failure to protect against Defendants Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2; (3) for deliberate indifference to serious || 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 || 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 December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wants to proceed |] 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 || because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed on the claims that the Court || found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 12), IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims || and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims (1) for excessive use of force against || Defendants Espinoza, Pangaldan, Ayala, Guiterrez, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Lopez; (2) for || failure to protect against Defendants Jane Doe | and Jane Doe 2; (3) for deliberate indifference || to serious medical needs against Defendant Pangaldan; and (4) for retaliation against Defendant || Gomez.

15 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 || thirty (30) 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.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 || pages, including exhibits. 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)).

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

241! Dated: _ January 6, 2025 [sf hey □□ 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE