Savage

(PC) Arceo v. Savage

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 20212:11-cv-02396California2,041 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY ARCEO, No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FURTHER SCHEDULING

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 3, 2020, the district court granted plaintiff an extension of time in which to file his pretrial statement. Plaintiff filed his pretrial statement and, pursuant to the district court’s order, the undersigned will set a deadline for defendants’ pretrial statement and set the pretrial conference. Subsequently, plaintiff filed two motions, which the court addresses below. I. Background This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint. (ECF No. 27.) On September 11, 2019, defendant Savage’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the remaining defendants Surjick, Kong, Adams and McHugh were granted summary judgment.1 (ECF No. 88, adopting ECF No. 81.) As 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.