Floyd

(PC) Craver v. Floyd

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 20222:20-cv-02327California2,817 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, No. 2:20-cv-02327 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER C. FLOYD, Defendant.

16 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s second motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion. MOTION TO COMPEL I. Background This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Dietician, C. Floyd. (ECF No. 1.) Following the screening of this complaint and defendant filing an answer, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”) on December 7, 2021. (ECF No. 21.) This order provided that parties could conduct discovery until April 15, 2022. (Id. at 6.) The order specified…

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.