Path

(PC) Harper v. Path

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 14, 20221:21-cv-00558California3,016 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

19 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and /or 20 preliminary injunction and motion to take judicial notice. For the reasons set forth below, the 21 undersigned recommends the district court deny the motions. 22 1. Allegations in FAC 23 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, initiated this action pro se by filing a prisoner civil rights 24 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 1, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds on his First 25 Amended Complaint filed on March 14, 2022, which identifies 18 defendants, including but not 26 limited to, the corporation that employs the medical staff at the county jail identified as Well 27 Path, LLC; a medical doctor; correctional officers at the Kings County Jail; and county officials. 28 (Doc. No. 18, “FAC”). Although the gravamen of the action pertains to the alleged lack of medical care provided to Plaintiff, the FAC initially attributes the lack of medical care to an inmate grievance Plaintiff filed against Well Path, LLC. (Id. at 6) (stating “[i]mmediately after plaintiff submitted a grievance to defendant Well Path, LLC, Defendant Dr. Steven Gustaveson, 5 …

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.