Heslop

(PC) Wilkins v. Heslop

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 19, 20242:20-cv-01622California3,860 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER S. HESLOP, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting excessive force, retaliation, and violations of due process and equal protection. Plaintiff also brings state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is before the court. (ECF No. 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. I. Background and Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court and defendants removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.) At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). (ECF No. 20 at 1.) The operative second amended complaint alleges that on January 17, 2019, plaintiff informed his correctional…

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.