Albonico

David Arnold Rodriguez v. N. Albonico

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 10, 20252:19-cv-01108California1,179 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-01108-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER

N. ALBONICO,

15 Defendants. 16 This section 1983 action previously proceeded to trial based on Plaintiff David Arnold Rodriguez’s claims against Defendants N. Albonico, J. Jackson, and Kyle Loftin. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights through the use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety and serious medical needs. At the conclusion of trial, the Jury found Defendants not liable for any of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for New Trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (ECF No. 158.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is denied. BACKGROUND The full facts and history of this case are well known to the Court and parties. In short, Plaintiff proceeded to trial on claims that during a disciplinary hearing before Defendant Albonico,…

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.