# Zaldivar-Galvez

> District Court, E.D. California · February 3, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369991

## Case

- **Full name:** Raul Rodriguez v. Zaldivar-Galvez
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 3, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369991

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAUL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00192-FRS (BAM) (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT
13 v. JUDGE TO ACTION
14 ZALDIVAR-GALVEZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE,
15 Defendant. FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 17)
16
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18 Plaintiff Raul Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint
20 is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 17.)
21 I. Screening Requirement and Standard
22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
24 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
25 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
26 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).
27 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
28 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
1 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
2 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
3 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
4 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
5 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
7 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
8 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
9 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
10 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
11 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
12 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations
13 Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
14 (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred.
15 Plaintiff names Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez, Primary Care Physician, License Number A-173456,
16 as the sole defendant.
17 Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered continued right upper quadrant pain, internal
18 hemorrhaging (black, tarry, odiferous stools), emesis containing emesis (vomit) – bile colored,
19 gross anemia, significant weight loss, lethargy, weakness, et seq. These symptoms were ignored
20 and not treated. Plaintiff was told by Defendant Galvez of treatment and tests ordered, that nurse
21 practitioners investigated treatment/tests delays, but they were never ordered by Defendant.
22 Defendant verbally refused to treat Plaintiff for serious increase of: epigastric/right upper
23 quadrant pain, internal hemorrhaging. “I’m not paying to put gas in the ambulance to drive to
24 Bakersfield.” Defendant refused to comply with any properly needed intervention required by
25 medical license law. Defendant refused to accept the recommendations professionally
26 recommended by medical experts.
27 Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a life-threatening crisis over three years, no medical
28 abatement was enacted due to Defendant’s avoidance, delay, and incompetence.
1 Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant falsified his medical credentials and electronically
2 deleted inmate files and/or destroyed medical legal documents. Defendant enters into the medical
3 records of every prisoner resident at SATF’s “F” Yard that he is a “Physician and Surgeon.”
4 However, Defendant is not, not has he ever been, a board certified surgeon in California or the
5 continental United States. Defendant Galvez claims verbally, on CDCR’s office computer, on
6 inmate medical records (a legal document), and on inmate medication authorization/prescription
7 that he is a physician and surgeon, but he cannot state what his surgical specialty is.
8 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in
9 destroying Plaintiff’s medical records (legal documents).
10 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury and damages.
11 III. Discussion
12 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite
13 being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure
14 the identified deficiencies.
15 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
16 Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
17 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations
18 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
19 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must
20 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
21 its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations
22 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss,
23 572 F.3d at 969.
24 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims showing
25 that he is entitled to relief. As Plaintiff was previously warned, he must allege facts that support
26 his asserted claims, including dates in the complaint regarding when Defendant began treating
27 Plaintiff and/or when Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff stopped. (See ECF No. 16, p. 6.)
28 Plaintiff failed to provide any further information regarding the timeline of his interactions with
1 Defendant, and the second amended complaint contains even fewer factual allegations regarding
2 what, if any, complaints Plaintiff made to Defendant regarding his medical conditions, and what,
3 if any, treatment Defendant prescribed to Plaintiff for his medical conditions.
4 B. Exhibits
5 To the extent Plaintiff relies on the additional exhibits submitted with his second amended
6 complaint to support his claims, Plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation as to the
7 significance of these exhibits or to otherwise incorporate them into his allegations.
8 While “much liberality is allowed in construing pro se complaints, a pro se litigant cannot
9 simply dump a stack of exhibits on the court and expect the court to sift through them to
10 determine if some nugget is buried somewhere in that mountain of papers, waiting to be
11 unearthed and refined into a cognizable claim.” Lam v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:23-
12 CV-01167 BAM PC, 2023 WL 8701254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2023), report and
13 recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-CV-1167 JLT BAM PC, 2024 WL 201269 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18,
14 2024) (quoting Samtani v. City of Laredo, 274 F. Supp. 3d 695, 698 (S.D. Tex. 2017)). “The
15 Court will not comb through attached exhibits seeking to determine whether a claim possibly
16 could have been stated where the pleading itself does not state a claim. In short, [Plaintiff] must
17 state a claim, not merely attach exhibits.” Stewart v. Nevada, No. 2:09-CV-01063-PMP-GWF,
18 2011 WL 588485, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2011).
19 C. Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need
20 A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
21 violation of the Eighth Amendment where the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate
22 indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)
23 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for deliberate
24 indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that failure
25 to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and
26 wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately
27 indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
28 ///
1 A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows
2 of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
3 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” Simmons v. Navajo Cty. Ariz., 609
4 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is
5 shown where there was “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible
6 medical need” and the indifference caused harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. In applying this
7 standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have
8 been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’
9 ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter
10 Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06). Even gross
11 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood
12 v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).
13 Further, a “difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner—or between
14 medical professionals—concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to
15 deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v.
16 Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard,
17 744 F.3d 1076, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122–23 (9th Cir.
18 2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must
19 show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the
20 circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive
21 risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation
22 marks omitted).
23 Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that he was experiencing a serious
24 medical need or that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to such a need. As noted above,
25 Plaintiff also fails to provide any timeline or factual detail regarding Plaintiff’s complaints, if any,
26 to Defendant regarding his medical conditions, and Defendant’s treatments, if any, of Plaintiff’s
27 medical conditions. At most, Plaintiff appears to allege mere indifference, negligence, or medical
28 malpractice, or even gross negligence, which will not support a deliberate indifference claim.
1 Broughton, 622 F.2d at 460; Wood, 900 F.2d at 1334. Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim
2 for relief for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
3 D. Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection
4 The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated
5 alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, (1985); Shakur v.
6 Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). An equal protection claim may be established by
7 showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against a plaintiff based on his membership
8 in a protected class, Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690,
9 702– 03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), or that
10 similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship
11 to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601–02 (2008);
12 Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546
13 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008).
14 Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable equal protection claim. Plaintiff alleges only that
15 Defendant Galvez denied Plaintiff his rights under the Equal Protection Clause, but pleads no
16 further facts regarding whether Plaintiff was a member of a protected class or how he was treated
17 differently than any similarly situated individual.
18 E. False Medical Records
19 To the extent Plaintiff alleges that his medical records have been fraudulently altered or
20 otherwise falsified when Defendant represented himself as a surgeon as well as a physician, false
21 medical reports do not give rise to a cognizable claim. Evans v. Diaz, No. 1:22-CV-00291 ADA
22 BAM PC, 2022 WL 17417816, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022) (failure to state a claim for
23 fabricated medical reasoning in medical report); Martin v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:22-CV-00889 AWI
24 BAM PC, 2022 WL 4345686, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2022), report and recommendation
25 adopted, No. 1:22-CV 00889 AWI BAM PC, 2022 WL 17406535 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2022)
26 (Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim based on allegations of a false medical injury report);
27 Sanford v. Eaton, No. 1:20-CV-00792 BAM (PC), 2021 WL 1172911, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29,
28 2021) (denying a claim alleging falsified medical report and statements made by Plaintiff),
1 denying to adopt on other grounds, Sanford v. Eaton, No. 1:20-CV00792-JLT BAM(PC), 2022
2 WL 168530, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2022). False medical information does not state a
3 cognizable claim.
4 F. Prison Regulations and Policies
5 To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has not complied with applicable state
6 statutes or prison regulations by representing himself as a surgeon in addition to a physician,
7 these deprivations do not support a claim under § 1983. Section 1983 only provides a cause of
8 action for the deprivation of federally protected rights. See, e.g., Nible v. Fink, 828 Fed. Appx.
9 463 (9th Cir. 2020) (violations of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations do not create
10 private right of action); Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009) (section 1983
11 claims must be premised on violation of federal constitutional right); Prock v. Warden, No. 1:13-
12 cv-01572-MJS (PC), 2013 WL 5553349, at *11–12 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) (noting that several
13 district courts have found no implied private right of action under title 15 and stating that “no §
14 1983 claim arises for [violations of title 15] even if they occurred.”); Parra v. Hernandez, No.
15 08cv0191-H (CAB), 2009 WL 3818376, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2009) (granting motion to
16 dismiss prisoner’s claims brought pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations);
17 Chappell v. Newbarth, No. 1:06-cv-01378-OWW-WMW (PC), 2009 WL 1211372, at *9 (E.D.
18 Cal. May 1, 2009) (holding that there is no private right of action under Title 15 of the California
19 Code of Regulations) ; Tirado v. Santiago, No. 1:22-CV-00724 BAM PC, 2022 WL 4586294, at
20 *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-00724 JLT
21 BAM PC, 2022 WL 16748838 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022) (same).
22 G. State Law Claims
23 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring any claims under California state law
24 regarding Defendant allegedly fraudulently representing himself as a surgeon despite only
25 holding a medical license as a physician, Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the claim
26 presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.
27 ///
28 ///
1 California’s Government Claims Act1 requires that a claim against the State2 or its
2 employees “relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person” be presented to the
3 Department of General Services’ Government Claims Program no more than six months after the
4 cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950–950.2. Presentation
5 of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim, are conditions precedent to suit. State
6 v. Super. Ct. of Kings Cty. (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1245 (Cal. 2004); Mangold v. Cal. Pub.
7 Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public entity
8 or employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Bodde, 32 Cal.
9 4th at 1245; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621,
10 627 (9th Cir. 1988).
11 Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district
12 court has original jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all
13 other claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
14 controversy under Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). “The district court
15 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the
16 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
17 § 1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before
18 trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Gibbs,
19 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Here, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state any
20 cognizable federal claims against Defendant. It will therefore be recommended that the Court
21 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any.
22 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
23 For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails
24 to state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with the relevant legal standards,
25

1 This Act was formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th
26
730, 741–42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using Government Claims Act rather than California Tort Claims
Act).
27

2 “ ‘State’ means the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission or agency of the
28 State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 900.6.
1 Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not
2 warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
4 randomly assign a District Judge to this action.
5 * * *
6 Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure
7 to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.
8 * * *
9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
11 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may
12 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
14 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
15 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
16 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
17 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
18 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
19 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21

22 Dated: February 3, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23

24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369991. Public record. Not legal advice.