Castillo

Castillo v. Goldsborough

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 20252:22-cv-00588California3,326 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUDY R. CASTILLO,

Plaintiff, No. 2:22-cv-00588-TLN-AC v. MARIS GOLDSBOROUGH, ORDER Defendant. 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Maris Goldsborough’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff Rudy R. Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 The instant action arises from Defendant’s warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s land. On April 1, 2020, at around 10:20 a.m., Defendant, a police officer, responded to 871 West A Street, City of Dixon, to assist Officer Geisser with a suspicious check involving Plaintiff. (ECF No. 24- 1 at 2.) While at the scene, Defendant received information from Officer Geisser that a woman had fallen out of Plaintiff’s truck after it abruptly turned…

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.