Urioste v. Corizon and Centurion Health Care Providers et al

Filing 96

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea for second Martinez Report. Martinez report due by October 20, 2021; Response due by November 22, 2021. (atc)

Case 1:16-cv-00755-JCH-KRS Document 96 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSHUA URIOSTE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 1:16-CV-00755-JCH-KRS

CORIZON AND CENTURION
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER FOR SECOND MARTINEZ REPORT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court has previously completed
its screening function and determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint stated a claim for
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from the alleged denial of medical care. (See, e.g., Doc.
26)1; (Doc. 30). At this time, all remaining Defendants have entered the case except for “Medical
Defendants” Jose Martinez, M.D. and Ben Martinez, P.A., and Plaintiff has failed to timely show
cause as to why the Medical Defendants should not be dismissed from this action for lack of
service. (See Doc. 89). Further, the Court has already narrowed the scope of § 1983 claims
remaining against most Defendants other than Gary Maciel and FNU Cordova (see Doc. 84), and
Maciel and Cordova have now entered the action through the filing of an answer to Plaintiff’s
operative pleading (Doc. 91). The Court also observes that Defendants did not directly address
defenses toward any official-capacity claims in their previous Martinez Report due to a lack of
clarity as to whether such claims had been pleaded. (See Doc. 73 at 46-47). Plaintiff has now

1

The Court’s January 8, 2020 order addressed claims in Plaintiff’s first Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 26).
Although Plaintiff has filed a second Amended Complaint (Doc. 62) since that time, the claims and allegations
presented in that pleading are essentially identical to those in the first Amended Complaint, and the Court has
largely stricken allegations from the second Amended Complaint to the extent that they were not also present in the
first Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 84); (see also Doc. 73 at 12-14) (addressing permissible and impermissible
differences between pleadings).

Case 1:16-cv-00755-JCH-KRS Document 96 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 4

made clear that he is seeking relief from Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities, and certain of those official-capacity claims were not dismissed by operation of the
Court’s June 25, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order. (See id.); (see also Doc. 84). For these
reasons, the Court concludes that a second Martinez Report is warranted to address certain
claims that remain pending in this action.
In a pro se prisoner civil rights case, the Court may order the defendants to investigate
the incident or incidents underlying a plaintiff’s lawsuit and submit a report of their investigation
in order to develop a factual or legal basis for determining whether meritorious claims exist.
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 320 (10th Cir. 1978). The Court may use a Martinez Report in
a variety of contexts, including to decide motions for summary judgment or to sua sponte enter
summary judgment. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1111‐12 (10th Cir. 1991); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). When a Martinez Report is used for summary
judgment purposes, however, a pro se plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to present
conflicting evidence to controvert the facts set out in the report. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109. To that
end, Defendants should submit all materials they consider relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and
defenses in addition to what the Court orders below. Plaintiff shall do the same in his response.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants file a Martinez Report on or before
October 20, 2021 as specified below:
1. Defendants’ Martinez Report shall be directed towards all allegations and claims against
Defendant Gary Maciel in his individual and official capacities; all allegations and claims
against Defendant FNU Cordova in his individual and official capacities; and any official
capacity claims against the Defendants who filed their answer on September 9, 2021 (see

2

Case 1:16-cv-00755-JCH-KRS Document 96 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 4

Doc. 91), to the extent that such official-capacity claims have not already been dismissed
by earlier order of the Court (see, e.g., Doc. 84) (adopting Doc. 73).
2. Defendants’ Martinez Report must address in a written brief said allegations and claims
against the specified Defendants as well as any defenses the specified Defendants wish to
pursue. Defendants shall also include as attachments any affidavits or documents relevant
to any allegation or defense. The submission of documents without a brief is not
compliance with this Order.
3. Allegations and defenses must be supported by factual assertions in the brief, which, in
turn, must be supported by proof, such as affidavits or documents that are to be included
as attachments.
4. The brief must also state whether policies or regulations pertaining to Plaintiff’s
allegations exist, and, if so, the relevant policies or regulations must also be included as
attachments.
5. Copies of all affidavits and documents included as attachments should be arranged in a
logical order and be Bates‐stamped or otherwise be clearly serially marked. Defendants
must also provide affidavits to properly authenticate submitted documents.
6. The Court is aware that materials contained in Defendants’ files may be sensitive and that
there may be valid reasons for restricting access to such information. Defendants may
move to seal confidential portions of documents submitted with the Martinez Report and
provide a redacted version of the Report to Plaintiff. If Defendants seek to seal or redact
any portion of their Report, they must file a motion to seal at least fourteen (14) days
before the Martinez Report deadline. The motion shall describe with specificity the type
of documents Defendants wish to seal and shall assert the reasons for nondisclosure.

3

Case 1:16-cv-00755-JCH-KRS Document 96 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 4

7. Should Defendants choose to file a motion for summary judgment concurrently with their
Martinez Report, that motion shall be filed separate and apart from the Report and must
comply with the applicable federal and local rules of procedure, with the following
caveat: rather than file attachments to a motion for summary judgment in support of the
factual assertions therein, Defendants shall instead cite to the Martinez Report. The
Report itself, however, need not adhere to the page limitation on exhibits concerning
motions for summary judgment set forth in the Local Rules. Defendants must provide
citations supporting their assertions with specificity. At the very least, Defendants should
direct Plaintiff and the Court to the specific page or pages supporting an assertion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his response to the facts contained
within Defendants’ Martinez Report on or before November 22, 2021. If Defendants file a
motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must file a separate response within thirty days.
Defendants shall file their reply, if any, to a motion for summary judgment within fourteen days
of Plaintiff’s response. Defendants need not file a reply to Plaintiff’s Response to the Martinez
Report.

_____________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4