Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00666-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDIE JARAMILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH BURNES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0666 JLT CDB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING 

THE CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE 

DOCKET

(Doc. 18)

Rudie Jaramillo seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for Eighth Amendment excessive force and 

First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, Garcia, 

Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz. (Doc. 18 at 4-10.) However, the magistrate judge found 

Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against J. Contreras and R. Villanueva-Garcia. (Id. at 8, 

9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss Contreras and 

Villanueva-Garcia as defendants and the action proceed on the cognizable claims. (Id. at 10.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 10.) The Court advised him that the “failure 

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 

(Id. at 11, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not 

Case 1:23-cv-00666-JLT-CDB Document 19 Filed 12/12/24 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

file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 8, 2024 (Doc. 18) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force 

and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, 

Garcia, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz.

3. Defendants J. Contreras and R. Villanueva-Garcia are DISMISSED from this action. 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket.

5. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-00666-JLT-CDB Document 19 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 2