Moreno

(PC) Montgomery v. Moreno

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 29, 20252:22-cv-00127California7,221 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DWAYNE STEVEN MONTGOMERY, No. 2:22-cv-00127-DAD-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

J. MORENO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court previously determined that plaintiff’s second amended complaint (SAC) alleged potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants S. Kirkendall-Cooper1 (licensed vocational nurse) and S. Wong (primary care physician), who were employed at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP). ECF Nos. 25, 26. Defendants now move for summary judgment under Rule 56. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff has responded, ECF No. 51, and defendants have replied, ECF No. 52. The SAC Allegations Against Kirkendall-Cooper. The SAC alleges that plaintiff was working in the MCSP kitchen on February…

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.