Kirsch

(PC) Krenitsky v. Kirsch

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 25, 20202:18-cv-00690California1,381 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALLAN DAVID KRENITSKY, No. 2:18-cv-0690 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. KIRSCH, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, resulting in the loss of his eye. Before the court is defendant Kirsch’s motion to quash a subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, this court finds oral argument unnecessary, vacates the August 28 hearing on the motion, and denies the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action, acting in pro per, on March 29, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleged that in 2018 at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) he suffered an eye injury during a fall that caused pain and vision loss. He filed a sick call form and was first seen by defendant Martinez, a registered nurse, who failed to treat his problem with any…

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.