Rhinehart

Rhinehart v. Montgomery

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 24, 20253:22-cv-00678California6,030 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MICHAEL JOSEPH RHINEHART, Case No.: 22-cv-0678-JLS-MMP

11 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. RECOMMENDING THE COURT

GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

W.L. MONTGOMERY, et al., FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis L. Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Pending before the Court is M. Arvizu and J. Rodriguez’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 57. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS the Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from his transport from California State Prison, Solano (“CSPS”) to Calipatria State Prison…

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.