Kyle

(PC) Harris v. Kyle

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 2, 20211:19-cv-00462California2,547 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

21 This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of 22 harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kyle, Grossman, Thompson, 23 Depovic, Moreno, Overly, Wright, Gamez, and Castillo, and for retaliation in violation of the 24 First Amendment against Defendants Kyle, Moreno, Wright, Overly, Gamez, and Castillo. 25 (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 15, 17, 31.) Plaintiff alleges, in relevant part, that he reported having suicidal 26 thoughts while housed in the Short Term Restricted Housing unit (“STRH”) at California State 27 Prison—Corcoran because the windowless cells in STRH lack natural light, but Defendant 28 Kyle nonetheless issued a chrono in September of 2016 indicating that he could be placed in STRH. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) A. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order On January 29, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case. (ECF No. 37.) Among other things, the Scheduling Order directed the parties to file a privilege log with the Court if a party sought to withhold a document on the basis of privilege. (Id.) On August 17, 2020, Defendants Kyle and Overly filed a privilege…

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.