Norwood

Norwood v. Woodford

Good Law
583 F. Supp. 2d 1200·2008 WL 4163257
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 200807cv57 WQH (JMA)California7,753 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hayes, J.

ORDER

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint filed by Jeanne Woodford and Gerald Janda (Doc. # 33); the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint filed by Jeanne Woodford, Gerald Janda and M Bourland (Doc. #44); the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint filed by Jeanne Woodford, Gerald Janda, M Bourland, and J Giurbino (Doc. # 58); and the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler (Doc. # 69).

Background

On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff Gregory Norwood, a state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a complaint (Doc. # 1). On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. # 12), which is the operative pleading in this case. The FAC alleges that Defendants Woodford, Janda, Bourland and Giurbino deprived Plaintiff of outdoor exercise from November 7, 2005 to December 16, 2006, a period of 39 days, in violation of his rights as protected by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The FAC alleges that “Defendants motives were to use the deprivation period as a means to punish Plaintiff.” FAQ p. 5. The FAC alleges that Woodford was the…

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.