Bahena

Bahena v. Ramirez

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 23, 20245:22-cv-03039California1,318 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ESMELING BAHENA, Case No. 22-cv-03039-PCP

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

INJUNCTIVE, DISCOVERY, AND

v. COUNSEL MOTIONS; REFERRING

ACTION TO MEDIATION

B. RAMIREZ, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 46, 50-52 Defendants.

12 Esmeling Bahena filed the instant civil rights lawsuit, alleging Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and were negligent. See Dkt. No. 28 (“Amended Complaint”). The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Mr. Bahena’s allegations. See Dkt. No. 30. Defendants’ dispositive motion currently is due August 1, 2024. See Dkt. No. 45. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Mr. Bahena’s motions for an injunction, discovery, and to be appointed counsel. These denials are without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate time or in the appropriate venue. The Court refers this action for settlement proceedings. A. Transfer Request In his reply in support of his…

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.