Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01381-0/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

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

JOSUE A. MEJIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ESPINOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01381-KES-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON 

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 1 AND JANE DOE 2; (3) FOR 

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO 

SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT PANGALDAN; AND (4) 

FOR RETALIATION AGAINST 

DEFENDANT GOMEZ

(ECF Nos. 1, 7, 12)

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 

Case 1:24-cv-01381-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 2
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

medical needs against Defendant Pangaldan; and (4) for retaliation against Defendant Gomez.

(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).

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 1 and Jane Doe 2; (3) for deliberate indifference 

to serious medical needs against Defendant Pangaldan; and (4) for retaliation against Defendant 

Gomez.

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)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01381-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 2