Diaz

(PC) Melendez v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 2, 20241:20-cv-01393California7,069 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 FREDDY ANTHONY MENDOZA, et Case No. 1:20-cv-01393-KES-CDB al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO Plaintiffs, GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. (Doc. 89) RALPH DIAZ, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE Defendants. OBJECTIONS 13 14 Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgement by Defendants Rosemary Ndoh (“Ndoh” or “Warden Ndoh”) and Ralph Diaz (“Diaz” or “Secretary Diaz”). (Doc. 89). Defendants contend the undisputed facts demonstrate that they are not liable for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and are also immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs Freddy Anthony Mendoza (“Mendoza”) and Salvador Salazar (“Salazar”) filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on March 29, 2024 (Doc. 95). Defendants filed a reply on April 9, 2024. (Doc. 96). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 22 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.