Culum

(PC) Montgomery v. Culum

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 20232:22-cv-01156California4,949 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DWAYNE MONTGOMERY, No. 2: 22-cv-1156 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

M. CULUM, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Named as defendants are Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) Correctional Officers Culum, Gamez, Pesce, Kelly, Hurtado, Sergent and Mott and MCSP Correctional Sergeant Clay. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains three claims for relief: retaliation, excessive force and denial of mental health care. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claims and plaintiff’s claim alleging denial of mental health care pursuant to Coleman v. Brown. The undersigned separately orders service of plaintiff’s claims alleging excessive force and…

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.