(PC) Ribot v. Smith

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 20212:19-cv-01361California1,183 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HUGO RIBOT, No. 2:19-CV-1361-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER SMITH, M.D., et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendant Christopher Smith’s motion to compel. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time to do so has expired. See L.R. 230(l). Defendant Smith has also filed a motion for summary judgment that the Court will address separately, as ordered below. See ECF No. 29. Plaintiff’s present § 1983 action against Defendant Smith and others concerns alleged deliberate indifference to his eye conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See ECF No. 1. Discovery proceeded on Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant Smith’s answer. The Court’s June 12, 2020, discovery and scheduling order provided 45 days for the parties to respond to…

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.