Van

Eugene E. Andreyev v. Amy Van, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20252:23-cv-01403California580 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE E. ANDREYEV, No. 2:23-cv-1403-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMY VAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Eugene Andreyev proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On September 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a second motion to compel pertaining to his discovery 19 request for police officer body-worn camera footage. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff’s second motion to 20 compel is not noticed for a hearing and does not reflect the procedures set forth in Local Rule 21 251. However, having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, the court will deny the second motion to 22 compel on the merits without a hearing or further briefing. 23 I. Background 24 Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) on February 1, 2024. 25 (ECF No. 6.) The court determined the allegations state a claim for a violation of plaintiff’s 26 Fourth Amendment rights in connection with the seizure of his vehicle. Plaintiff proceeds against 27 defendants Turcotte,…

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.