govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-10441-0

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 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
WARREN FRANK, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
J. AGUILERA, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER OF SERVICE; STAYING 
ACTION; AND REFERRING FOR 
SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 
1983 about an incident involving correctional staff at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP). For the 
reasons stated below, the complaint is ordered served on defendants. Plaintiff has been granted 
leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. The case will be stayed and referred for 
settlement proceedings. 
DISCUSSION 
1. Standard of Review 
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 
redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 
claims which 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. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 
Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 

 
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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 
which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 
detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must do more than recite elements of a 
cause of action and state conclusions; rather, a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 
raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court explained this standard: “[w]hile legal 
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 
allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 
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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 
2. Legal Claims 
Plaintiff alleges the following: on June 3, 2025, he was seeking information about how to 
get the electricity fixed in his cell to be able to use his breathing machine when defendant Aguilera 
told him to go back to his housing unit. Aguilera radioed “Code 1 disruptive inmate, Alpha patio,” 
and plaintiff removed himself from his wheelchair and lay prone on the ground. Aguilera secured 
his hands in handcuffs behind his back. Defendants Toledo and Mancillas arrived, and Aguilera 
told them to put plaintiff back in his wheelchair. Plaintiff started experiencing a lack of air and 
coughing and choking. He heard Aguilera tell the others to “slam him,” and then Toledo and 
Mancillas lifted him out of the chair and slammed his face on the ground. Plaintiff was transported 
to the Correctional Treatment Center by emergency medical vehicle, and he required sutures in his 
lip. Plaintiff seeks damages. He also seeks injunctive relief against the defendants, which is moot 
because he is no longer housed at SVSP. 
Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a claim under section 1983 against defendants 

 
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 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Aguilera, Toledo, and Mancillas for using excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment 
rights. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). 
3. Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program 
The Northern District of California has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. 
Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement 
proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by Magistrate 
Judge Robert M. Illman. The Court finds that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge 
Illman for settlement proceedings. Accordingly, the Court hereby REFERS this case to Magistrate 
Judge Illman for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such 
proceedings shall take place within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as 
Magistrate Judge Illman’s calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, 
time and date for one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their 
representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall 
file with the Court a report thereon. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 
1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: 
a. Sergeant Aguilera at SVSP 
b. Correctional Officer J. Toledo at SVSP 
c. Correctional Officer N. Mancillas at SVSP 
Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service pilot program for civil rights cases from 
prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk of the Court is directed to 
serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 1), this 
order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form and a summons. The Clerk shall serve 
by mail 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) 

 
4 
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 
Northern District of California 
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 form and copies 
of this order, summons, and operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has not 
waived service. The Clerk also shall provide the USMS with a copy of the CDCR Report of E-
Service Waiver. 
2. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and 
complaint. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 
date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), defendants will not be 
required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR 
provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s 
Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 
summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by 
the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being 
served with the summons and complaint. 
3. This action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk is 
directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this Order and to notify Magistrate Judge 
Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 
4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or 
defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 
defendants or defendants’ counsel. 
5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

 
5 
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 
Northern District of California 
and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 41(b). 
6. In view of the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, after the 
complaint has been served on the aforementioned named defendants against whom plaintiff has 
alleged cognizable claims, all other further proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: May 22, 2026 
 
 
TRINA L. THOMPSON 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight