Lovell

Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department

Good Law

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 10, 20253:23-cv-01451California1,496 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DAVID ANTHONY LOVELL, Case No. 23-cv-01451-WHO (PR) Plaintiff, 7 AMENDED ORDER OF SERVICE; v. 8 ORDER DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE A

9 COOPER, et al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

Defendants. 10 MOTION; 11 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 12 13 Plaintiff David Anthony Lovell III alleges defendants violated his Eighth 14 Amendment rights by being deliberate indifferent to his serious medical needs. His first 15 amended complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 17 Lovell has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious 18 medical needs claims against East Oakland Police Officers Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, Arzate, 19 and Dr. Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail. The Court directs these defendants to file in 20 response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such…

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.