Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESMELING L. BAHENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEMON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-01585-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 24)

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that this action 

proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Mendoza for violations of 

the Eighth Amendment due to closing the cell door on Plaintiff’s fingers and for failing to seek 

medical treatment for him despite Plaintiff’s repeated calls for help. (Doc. 24.) The magistrate 

judge recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The Court served the findings and 

recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were to be filed within 14 days 

after service. (Id. at 17.)

Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 

25.) Finding that further leave to amend was not warranted, the magistrate judge denied the 

motion but extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. 26.) The Court explicitly instructed him that he “may not file an 

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 28 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3
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

amended complaint in response to this order.” (Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).) Despite this

instruction, on April 24, 2023, Plaintiff lodged a third amended complaint. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff 

has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and the deadline to do so has 

expired.

Despite lacking leave to file the amended complaint, the Court has reviewed the lodged 

third amended complaint. However, third amended complaint includes additional factual 

allegations and adds new and unrelated claims, despite being warned in prior screening orders 

that Plaintiff may not add new, unrelated claims to his amended complaints. Even still, the Court 

finds that the lodged third amended complaint again fails to cure the deficiencies identified by the 

findings and recommendations. 

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

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the lodged third amended complaint,

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2023, (Doc. 24), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. The third amended complaint lodged on April 24, 2023, (Doc. 27), is STRICKEN

from the record.

3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed February 21, 

2023, (Doc. 21), against Defendant Mendoza for excessive force and deliberate 

indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

4. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state 

claims upon which relief may be granted.

5. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 28 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 28 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3