Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00557/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00557-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ORLANDO MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-00557 ALA P

vs.

ALVARO C. TRAQUINA,

Defendant. ORDER

____________________________/

Plaintiff Orlando Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial is set for January 23, 2008. 

Before this Court is defendant Doctor Alvaro C. Traquina’s motion for summary

judgment and Mr. Martin’s motion to amend his pretrial statement. The Court grants Mr.

Martin’s motion to amend his pretrial statement to call two witnesses and denies Doctor

Traquina’s motion for summary judgment. The Court vacates its November 21, 2007, order

requiring Doctor Traquina to file a response to Mr. Martin’s opposition to the motion for

summary judgment.

I

On August 3, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. The only remaining issue is Mr. Martin’s claim that Doctor Traquina

delayed his bone spur removal surgery in violation of Mr. Martin’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 81 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2

On October 30, 2007, Dr. Traquina filed a motion for summary judgment on the

remaining claim. Dr. Traquina argues that Mr. Martin failed to identify any witnesses in his

pretrial statement and that “without witnesses at trial, plaintiff cannot establish that Dr. Traquina

was ‘deliberately indifferent’ to plaintiff’s purported medical needs.” Mot. for Summ. J. at 7:27-

28. 

On November 15, 2007, Mr. Martin filed an opposition to the motion for summary

judgment and a motion to amend his pretrial statement. In his motion to amend his pretrial

statement he states that he “will subpoena both Dr. Chin and Dr. Dwayne Highsmith.” Mot. to

Amend. at 4:6. Dr. Traquina argues that this request should be denied. Dr. Traquina maintains

that, instead of filing a motion for summary judgment, he could have waited until after Mr.

Martin failed to present witnesses at trial and then moved for non-suit. Dr. Traquina contends

that he “should not be prejudiced by seeking to resolve this matter prior to trial in the interests of

justice and judicial economy.” Mot. for Summ. J. at 7:17-18. 

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may modify

the [final pretrial] order issued after a pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.” 

“Under this principle, a pre-trial order ‘is not an inexorable decree and may, under proper

circumstances, be modified’.” Angle v. Sky Chef, Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1976)

(citations omitted). “In the exercise of sound judicial administration and the interest of justice,

‘an amendment of a pre-trial order should be permitted where no substantial injury will be

occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to

the movant, and the inconvenience to the court is slight.’” Id. (citations omitted); see also United

States v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that to modify

a pretrial order the court should consider the degree of prejudice to movant and opposing party,

the impact of a modification at that stage of litigation on the orderly and efficient conduct of the

case, and the degree of willfulness, bad faith or inexcusable neglect on part of movant).

There has been no final pretrial order issued in this case. Therefore, the inconvenience to

the Court to allow Mr. Martin to amend his pretrial statement is slight. 

Moreover, Dr. Traquina has been put on notice since August 3, 2007, that the remaining

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 81 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 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

3

claim in this case concerns whether he was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Martin’s need for bone

spur removal surgery. In the second amended complaint, filed on January 13, 2006, Mr. Martin

identified both Dr. Chin and Dr. Highsmith, the witnesses he moves to add to his pretrial

statement, as relevant to the remaining claim. See, e.g., Second Am. Compl. 8:8-14, 9:2-8;

Mem. in Supp. of Sec. Am. Compl. at 9:9-28. There is no evidence that Mr. Martin, a pro se

plaintiff, willfully failed to list these witnesses in his pretrial statement. Since Dr. Traquina was

aware of these witnesses since the inception of the case, allowing Mr. Martin to amend his

pretrial statement to include these two witnesses will not result in substantial injury to or

prejudice Dr. Traquina. 

Finally, if Mr. Martin’s motion to amend his pretrial statement is denied it would result in

manifest injustice because he would be unable to pursue his claim. See, e.g., Clark v. Penn. R.R.,

328 F.2d 591, 594 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006 (1964) (holding that the trial court

had the ability to amend its pretrial order during trial to allow additional witnesses to testify,

explaining that “[o]therwise a pretrial order or pre-trial statements would hold parties in a vise,

and the result might be just about as bad as a return to the old sporting theory of justice.”). Mr.

Martin’s motion to amend his pretrial statement is, therefore, granted.

Mr. Martin claims that “Dr. Chin and Dr. Dwayne Highsmith . . . will have to be

subpoena[ed] against their will.” Mot. to Am. at 4:6-7. Mr. Martin is advised that the

procedures for subpoenaing witnesses are fully set forth in the Court’s Revised Scheduling Order

dated March 1, 2006.

II 

Mr. Martin has identified two witnesses that he intends to call at trial. Thus, Dr.

Traquina’s argument in his motion for summary judgment that Mr. Martin would not be able to

provide evidence at trial to support his claim fails. Dr. Traquina’s motion for summary judgment

is denied and the Court’s November 21, 2007, order to respond to Mr. Martin’s opposition to the

motion for summary judgment is vacated.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 81 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pretrial Statement to include witnesses Dr. Chin and

Dr. Highsmith is granted;

3. The Court’s November 21, 2007, order requiring Defendant to respond to

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgement is vacated.

/////

DATED: December 14, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 81 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 4