Odell v. Xu/Tzue
- James Donato
- 3:25-cv-04306
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Richard Odell v. Xu/Tzue, Judge Donato ordered service on Dr. Pajong, continued the case against Drs. Xu and Pajong, and dismissed all other defendants.
Richard Odell and Drs. Xu and Pajong are affected. Dr. Pajong must be served, Dr. Xu remains in the case, and all other defendants are dismissed from the action.
What happened
Richard Odell, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983. The court had previously found that he stated a legally sufficient claim that Dr. Xu and Dr. Pajong were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
The other defendants had been dismissed with permission to amend, but Odell did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore continued the case only against Dr. Xu and Dr. Pajong. Dr. Xu had already been served, and the court ordered electronic service on Dr. Pajong.
The order also set procedures for service, discovery, and future dispositive motions, including a deadline for the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case. Judge Donato did not decide whether Odell ultimately proved his claim.
The detailed version
- Odell v. Xu/Tzue · No. 3:25-cv-04306
- James Donato
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
Richard Odell, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously determined that the complaint stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Xu and Dr. Pajong. The opinion does not provide the factual allegations underlying that claim.
The court had dismissed the remaining defendants with leave to amend so that Odell could present additional allegations. Odell did not file an amended complaint. As a result, the case continued only against Dr. Xu and Dr. Pajong.
Service and Case Schedule
The court ordered that Dr. Sam Pajong be electronically served at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. Dr. Xu had already been served. The order states that all other defendants were dismissed from the action.
The order directed the department to report which defendant would waive service and which defendant declined to waive service or could not be reached. If necessary, the clerk would prepare documents for service by the United States Marshals Service.
The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 90 days after service, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Odell would have 30 days to oppose such a motion, and the defendants would have 15 days to file a reply. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.
Ruling
The court ordered service on Dr. Pajong, continued the action against Dr. Xu and Dr. Pajong, and dismissed all other defendants. It also set the procedures governing service, discovery, and potential dispositive motions. This order did not decide the merits of the deliberate-indifference claim; it managed the case after the earlier screening determination. The court further instructed Odell to serve defendants with his court communications, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders, warning that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.