# Jimenez

> District Court, N.D. California · July 31, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11424908

## Case

- **Full name:** Sergio A. Jimenez v. Bass, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** July 31, 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/11424908

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SERGIO A. JIMENEZ, Case No. 24-cv-06428-JST

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
9 v. REOPEN; DIRECTING CLERK TO
VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND
10 BASS, et al., JUDGMENT AND TO REOPEN CASE;
SCREENING COMPLAINT;
11 Defendants. DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS
12 Re: ECF No. 16

13
14 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action.
15 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to reopen this action, ECF
16 No. 16; ORDERS the Clerk to VACATE the January 30, 2025 Order of Dismissal and Judgment
17 (ECF Nos. 11, 12); ORDERS partial service of the operative complaint; and ORDERS Defendants
18 to inform the Court whether this case will be included in the potential global settlement being
19 discussed in Case No. 24-cv-6420 JST, Dominguez v. Bass, or whether this case should proceed
20 separately. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
21 DISCUSSION
22 I. Procedural Background and Related Cases
23 Plaintiff commenced this action on or about September 12, 2024 when he sent this Court
24 via postal mail a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. The Court
25 informed him that the action was deficient because Plaintiff had not submitted his case-initiating
26 documents via electronic mail as required by the Northern District of California’s General Order
27
1 No. 76 (“GO 76”)1 and ordered Plaintiff to comply with GO 76 by September 28, 2024 or face
2 dismissal of this action. ECF No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to
3 November 22, 2024 to comply with GO 76. ECF No. 6.
4 On December 16, 2024, this case was related to Case No. 23-cv-00671 JST, Brown v. Bass
5 (“Brown”). ECF No. 7. In this December 16, 2024 order, the following additional cases were
6 also related to Brown and reassigned to the undersigned if necessary: Case No. 3:24-cv-02621,
7 Young v. Bass; Case No. 3:24-cv-05348, Sierra v. Bass; Case No. 5:24-cv-06262, Yepez v. Bass;
8 Case No. 4:24-cv-06285, Delossa v. Bass; Case No. 3:24-cv-06286, Hernandez v. Bass; Case No.
9 1:24-cv-06667, Segura v. Bass; Case No. 5:24-cv-07502, Meija v. Taylor.
10 On January 30, 2025, the Court dismissed this action and entered judgment against
11 Plaintiff because Plaintiff had not submitted his case-initiating documents via electronic mail as
12 required GO 76. ECF Nos. 11, 12. The dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff requesting to
13 reopen this action once he complied with GO 76. Id. That same day, in Brown and the related
14 cases, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ administrative motion requesting
15 that a bellwether case be set. Brown, ECF No. 20.
16 On March 12, 2025, after this case was closed, Plaintiff filed a pleading in this case, stating
17 that he agreed to the setting of a bellwether case; agreed that the bellwether case should be Case
18 No. 24-cv-6667 JST, Pulido Segura v. Bass; and agreed to the proposed discovery and dispositive
19 motion deadlines. ECF No. 13.
20 On March 27, 2025, the Court dismissed Brown pursuant to N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-11. Brown,
21 ECF No. 38.
22 On May 5, 2025, the Court issued an order in the open related cases which designated Case
23 No. 24-cv-6262 JST, Yepez v. Bass (“Yepez”), as the bellwether case; administratively stayed the
24 remaining cases; and set discovery and briefing deadlines in Yepez. Yepez, ECF No. 23. On May
25 27, 2025, per Mr. Yepez’s request, the Court designated Case No. 24-cv-6420 JST, Dominguez v.
26
1 N.D. Cal. GO 76 requires prisoners within the custody of certain California Department of
27
Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) institutions, including San Quentin Rehabilitation
1 Bass (“Dominguez”), as the bellwether case; lifted the administrative stay of Dominguez; and
2 administratively closed Yepez. Dominguez, ECF No. 21.
3 On March 26, 2026, Mr. Dominguez and Defendants reported that they were discussing
4 the possibility of a global settlement between Defendants and Mr. Dominguez and the plaintiffs in
5 all other related active cases. Dominguez, ECF No. 30. Mr. Dominguez and Defendants requested
6 that the pending deadlines be vacated and that Dominguez be stayed until October 12, 2026. Id.
7 On April 9, 2026, the Court vacated all deadlines in Dominguez and administratively stayed
8 Dominguez pursuant to the parties’ joint request. Dominguez, ECF No. 31.
9 On June 8, 2026, the Court received a request for a status update from Plaintiff, wherein
10 Plaintiff stated that he did not intend to dismiss this case. ECF No. 14. The Court construed this
11 request as a request to reopen, and denied the request to reopen without prejudice to Plaintiff
12 correcting the GO 76 deficiency that had required the dismissal of this action. ECF No. 15.
13 On July 19, 2026, Plaintiff submitted both a complaint and an in forma pauperis
14 application via electronic mail. ECF Nos. 16, 17.
15 II. Granting Request to Reopen Action (ECF No. 16); Directions to Clerk
16 On January 30, 2025, the Court dismissed this action and entered judgment against
17 Plaintiff because Plaintiff had not submitted his case-initiating documents via electronic mail as
18 required by GO 76. ECF Nos. 11, 12. The dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff requesting
19 to reopen this action once he complied with GO 76. Plaintiff has since complied with GO 76 but
20 filing his case-initiating documents via electronic mail on July 9, 2026. ECF Nos. 18, 19. The
21 Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this action. ECF No. 16. The Court directs
22 the Clerk to VACATE the Order of Dismissal and related judgement (ECF Nos. 11, 12); and
23 REOPEN this case.
24 III. Screening Complaint
25 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court conducts a preliminary screening of the
26 complaint, ECF No. 19.
27 A. Standard of Review
1 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
2 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims
3 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek
4 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
5 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d
6 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).
7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
8 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
9 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
10 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).
11 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,
12 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).
13 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
14 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.
15 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
16 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
17 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
18 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
19 B. Complaint
20 The complaint states that it is brought on behalf of Plaintiff, inmates John Riley and Jesse
21 Rose, and “over 100 plaintiffs.”2 The complaint names as defendants SQRC correctional officials
22 Lieutenant Bass; Sergeants M. Taylor and E. Simpson; and Officer E. Castillo. The complaint
23 alleges that on October 8, 2022,3 defendants Bass, Simpson, and Taylor directed correctional
24
2 The complaint in this action appears to be identical to the complaints filed in the following cases:
25
Case No. 24-cv-5348 JST, Sierra v. Bass, et al.; Case No. 24-cv-6262 JST, Yepez v. Bass, et al.;
Case No. 24-cv-6286 JST, Hernandez v. Bass, et al.; Case No. 24-cv-6285 JST, Delossa v. Bass,
26
et al.; Case No. 24-cv-6420 JST, Dominguez v. Bass, et al.; Case No. 24-cv-6428 JST, Jimenez v.
Bass, et al.; Case No. 24-cv-6667 JST, Pulido Segura v. Bass, et al.; and Case No. 24-cv-7502,
27
Mejia v. Bass, et al.
1 officers to perform an unclothed body search of Plaintiff as various female correctional officers
2 watched. Plaintiff was traumatized emotionally and mentally by this event. The attachments to
3 the complaint indicate that the strip search was conducted on the open-air grounds of the H-Unit
4 yard without the benefit of privacy shields, and required that Plaintiff expose his genitals and anus.
5 The complaint seeks monetary damages. See generally ECF No. 19.
6 C. Order of Partial Service
7 Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable claim against Lieutenant Bass and
8 Sergeants Taylor and Simpson for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Byrd v.
9 Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Byrd I”) (cross-
10 gender strip search in non-emergency situation that involves touching inmate’s genitalia and
11 searching inside anus unreasonable as matter of law); Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors,
12 845 F.3d 919, 922-24 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Byrd II”) (whether cross-gender strip search violates
13 Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure depends on (1) scope of
14 particular intrusion, (2) manner in which it is conducted, (3) justification for search, and
15 (4) place in which it is conducted; whether cross-gender search violates Fourteenth Amendment
16 right to bodily privacy depends on (1) whether there is valid, rational connection between search
17 and legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative
18 means of exercising Fourteenth Amendment right; (3) impact accommodation of Fourteenth
19 Amendment right will have on guards and other inmates, and on allocation of prison resources;
20 and (4) availability of ready alternatives); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 334 (9th Cir.
21 1988) (in determining whether right to bodily privacy violated, relevant whether female officers
22 regularly or frequently observe unclothed inmates without legitimate reason).
23 The Court DISMISSES defendant Castillo from this action because the complaint makes
24 no allegations regarding defendant Castillo. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an
25 amended complaint bringing claims against defendant Castillo.
26 The Court DISMISSES proposed co-plaintiffs inmates John Riley and Jesse Rose from this
27
1 action. Neither of these inmates has signed the complaint, filed applications for leave to proceed
2 in forma pauperis, or otherwise indicated that they wish to bring this action. In any event, this
3 action may not proceed with co-plaintiffs. Generally, a pro se plaintiff is prohibited from pursuing
4 claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d
5 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a
6 litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”); see
7 also Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (“Ability to protect
8 the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the competence
9 of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of
10 others.”) (citation omitted). This dismissal of inmates John Riley #BR4912 and Jesse Rose
11 #A43064 from this action is without prejudice to each of those inmates filing a separate action
12 should they so wish. The Clerk is directed to send inmates John Riley #BR4912 and Jesse Rose
13 #A43064 two copies of the Court’s complaint form.
14 D. Case Management Deadlines
15 This case has been related to ten other cases which concern the same strip search. ECF
16 No. 7. The bellwether case, Case No. 24-cv-6420 JST, Dominguez v. Bass (“Dominguez”), is
17 stayed through October 12, 2026, as Defendants are discussing the possibility of a global
18 settlement between Defendants and Mr. Dominguez and all other plaintiffs with active related
19 cases. Dominguez, ECF No. 30. Because Defendants may choose to include this case in the
20 potential global settlement, the Court will not set deadlines in this case at this time.
21 Within 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, Defendants shall inform
22 the Court whether this case will be included in the potential global settlement being discussed in
23 Dominguez or whether this case should proceed separately. If this case is included in the potential
24 global settlement being discussed in Dominguez, the Court will administratively stay the case. If
25 Defendants prefer the case proceed separately, the Court will set case management deadlines.
26 Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No
27 further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.
3 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: San Quentin Rehabilitation Center
4 lieutenant C. Bass, Sgt. M. Taylor, and Sgt. E. Simpson.
5 2. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of
6 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners
7 in the CDCR’s custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the
8 CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint (ECF No. 19), this order of
9 service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a
10 copy of this order on the Plaintiff.
11 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall
12 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which
13 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by
14 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or
15 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service
16 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court
17 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service.
18 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each
19 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a
20 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies
21 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has
22 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-
23 Service Waiver.
24 3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to reopen this action. ECF No. 16. The
25 Court ORDERS the Clerk to VACATE the January 30, 2025 Order of Dismissal and Judgment.
26 ECF Nos. 11, 12.
27 4. The Court DISMISSES proposed co-plaintiffs John Riley #BR4912 and Jesse Rose
1 wish. The Clerk is directed to send John Riley and Jesse Rose a courtesy copy of this order and
2 two copies of the court’s complaint form to San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.
3 5. The Court DISMISSES defendant Castillo from this action with leave to amend. If
4 Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint alleging claims against defendant Castillo, he must
5 file the amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order. The amended
6 complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. 24-cv-
7 06428 JST (PR) and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court
8 form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to
9 proceed. An amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v.
10 Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff must include in his
11 amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue,
12 including the claims found cognizable above and the defendants ordered served above. Plaintiff
13 may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended
14 complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided will result in ECF No. 19 remaining
15 the operative complaint and defendant Castillo being dismissed from this action with prejudice.
16 The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to
17 Plaintiff.
18 6. As detailed above, the complaint states a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim and
19 a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendants Bass, Taylor, and Simpson.
20 7. Within 40 days after the date of this order, Defendants shall inform the Court
21 whether this case will be included in the potential global settlement being discussed in Dominguez
22 or whether this case should proceed separately.
23 8. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants’
24 counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard
25 any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until Defendants’
26 counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to
27 Defendants but once Defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to
] 9. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 || No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required
3 || before the parties may conduct discovery.
4 10. _—_— Plaintiff's responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the
5 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely
6 || fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
7 || to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every
8 || pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.
9 11. | Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought
10 || to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. Plaintiff is cautioned that
11 he must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to the
12 || Court for consideration in this case.
13 This order terminates ECF No. 16.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 15 || Dated: July 31, 2026 . .

16 JON S. TIG
17 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11424908. Public record. Not legal advice.