govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_26-cv-00335-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
DANIEL RAY MARTINEZ, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
JAIMEZ, et al., 
Defendants. 
 
 
 

 
ORDER OF SERVICE; 
 
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT 
TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 
OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 
MOTION; 
 
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 
Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 21 
 
 
Daniel Ray Martinez a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, proceeding pro se, 
filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 4, 2026, the Court 
dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by March 10, 2026. (Dkt. No. 
10.) The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim of excessive force against one Defendant but 
dismissed the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against several Defendants. 
At the time, the Court believed that it had not received an amended complaint; therefore, the 
medical claims were dismissed, and service was ordered on the excessive force claim. (Dkt. No. 
12.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that he had in fact sent the Court an 
amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) Although the Court was unable to locate it, the motion for 
reconsideration was granted, and Plaintiff was provided an extension to file an amended 
complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Clerk’s Office then discovered that Plaintiff had indeed filed an 
amended complaint as required, but the Clerk’s Office had failed to timely docket it. (Dkt. No. 
16.) Soon after, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) The Court is 
following up with the Clerk’s Office to find out the reason for this error, and to ensure that it is 
corrected in the future for Plaintiff and others. The Court now reviews Plaintiff’s new amended 

2 
complaint (Dkt. No. 17), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 
When liberally construed, Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to serious 
medical needs against Dr. Lam, Dr. Clark, Bright, and Pagulaya. The remaining Defendants are 
DISMISSED from this action. Defendants shall file a response to the complaint, a dispositive 
motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or before August 3, 2026.1 
DISCUSSION 
A. Standard of Review 
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner 
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss 
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or 
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), 
(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 
Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual 
allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. 
Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). 
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 
 
1 Once the new Defendants are served, they may request to extend the dispositive motion 
deadline in coordination with the previously served Defendant. 

3 
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 
B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On March 15, 2025, he was shot in the hand with a non-lethal 
round. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.) An X-ray indicated that his finger was fractured, and he received five 
sutures. (Id.) Defendant Dr. Lam told Plaintiff the he was unable to determine if surgery was 
required and that he needed to see an orthopedic specialist immediately. (Id. at 2-3.) Dr. Lam 
and Defendant Dr. Clark did not refer Plaintiff to the specialist. (Id. at 3, 5.) Defendants Bright 
and Pagualaya were also responsible for scheduling outside appointments but delayed the request 
and mischaracterized the priority of the medical injury. (Id. at 5.) 
On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff was in an altercation with Defendant Jaimez where his broken 
finger was forcefully grabbed causing further injury to the finger and tearing the sutures. (Id. at 
3.)2 A new X-ray indicated that the fracture was displaced. (Id.) Plaintiff eventually received 
surgery two and a half months later. (Id. at 5.) Due to the delay, his finger had to be rebroken 
and two rods were permanently installed. (Id.) Plaintiff is still in pain and has limited range of 
motion with his hand and the ability to use it has been diminished. (Id. at 5-6.) 
C. Analysis 
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 
Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 
U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of 
two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s 
response to that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on 
other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A 
“serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 
significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. 
at 104). In order to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs, a plaintiff 
 
2 The Court already ordered service on the excessive force claim against Jaimez. (Dkt. No. 12.) 

4 
must establish that prison staff knew of the seriousness of those needs and chose a path that was 
both “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and in “conscious disregard of an 
excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir. 
2004). 
Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. 
Lam, Dr. Clark, Bright, and Pagulaya. Plaintiff states that Defendant Nurse Bagood told him he 
would see an orthopedic specialist within the week, but that did not occur. 3 There are no other 
allegations against Bagood and these allegations fail to demonstrate a constitutional violation. 
This Defendant is dismissed. Plaintiff names two additional correctional officers but provides 
few allegations against them. He states that Defendants Avalos and Mora were present when 
Plaintiff was assaulted by Jaimez and that they corroborated Jaimez’s factual account of the 
incident, which was untrue. These brief allegations fail to state a deliberate indifference claim 
against Avalos and Mora, and they are dismissed from this action. 
 CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a case management conference (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED. 
The Court will order a conference if required once Defendants have all been served. Defendant’s 
motion to screen the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED. The Court orders service 
on Dr. Lam, Dr. Clark, Darrin Bright and Nurse Patrick Pagulaya at Salinas Valley State Prison. 
The remaining Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. 
2. Service on these Defendants shall proceed under the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR 
custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the 
following documents: the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17) and its attachments; this order; a 
 
3 Nurse Bagood was not listed as a Defendant on the resubmitted complaint (Dkt. No. 17) but 
was listed as a Defendant on the late docketed complaint (Dkt. No. 16). The Court will review 
the brief allegations against this Defendant. 

5 
CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of 
this order on Plaintiff. 
No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide 
the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the Court which 
Defendant(s) listed in this Order will be waiving service of process without the need for service 
by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which Defendant(s) decline to waive service 
or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 
Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the 
Court a waiver of service of process for the Defendant(s) who are waiving service. 
Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 
Defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 
USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and 
copies of this Order, the summons and the complaint for service upon each Defendant who has 
not waived service. 
3. On or before August 3, 2026, Defendants shall file a motion for summary 
judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to be 
cognizable above. 
 a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds Plaintiff 
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 
Defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v. Baca, 747 
F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 
 b. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by 
summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment 
motion is due. 
4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and 
served on Defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date Defendants’ motion is 
filed. 

6 
5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 
Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 
6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 
hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 
7. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, 
or on Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the 
document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 
8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
No further Court order under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is required before the parties 
may conduct discovery. 
Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their 
medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974); 15 
California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§ 
13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these 
files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to prison officials, not to the Court. 
Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the 
opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail officials 
that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must be made 
directly to jail officials, not to the Court. 
9. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 
informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 
10. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended 
and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 
11. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be given 
“notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of 

7 
filing of the motions, rather than when the Court orders service of process or otherwise before 
the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendants shall 
provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves any motion for summary 
judgment: 
 
The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek 
to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 
 
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary 
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no 
genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact 
that would affect the re sult of your case, the party who asked for summary 
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 
When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is 
properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply 
rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in 
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 
as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the d efendants’ 
declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact 
for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary 
judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is 
granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998). 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 12, 2026 
 
 
RITA F. LIN 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight