Gilliam

Gilliam v. O'Neill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 14, 20201:19-cv-01711California1,946 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JESSE GILLIAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01711-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING

v. DEFENDANTS BARBARA HOPE O’NEILL

AND KEN TANIGUCHI FOR FAILURE TO

BARBARA HOPE O’NEILL, et al., SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4(m) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL Defendants. PROCEDURE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

13 (ECF No. 17)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

16 William Jesse Gilliam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Barbara Hope O’Neill, the County of Fresno, Phil Larson, Susan B. Anderson, Henry R. Perea, Judy Case McNairy, Deporah Poochigian, Andreas Boregas, Buddy Mendez, Brian Pacheco, Ken Taniguchi, and Elizabeth Diaz (“Defendants”) based on delays in bringing him to trial on allegations that he was a sexually violent predator. On December 11, 2019, summonses and the order setting the mandatory scheduling…

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.