Hurtado

(PC) Adkins v. Hurtado

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 6, 20232:21-cv-00531California2,183 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DUPREE LAMONT ADKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00531-DJC-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

DAVID HURTADO, et al.,

Defendants. 16 Plaintiff alleges that while he was at California Medical Facility in 2020, defendant Marshak retaliated against him, and both defendants Hurtado and Marshak denied him access to courts and violated his equal protection rights. Plaintiff has three pending motions: a motion to compel, ECF No. 42; a motion for investigation, ECF No. 43; and a motion to amend, ECF No. 66. I will grant his motion to compel in part and deny his motion for investigation, and I will recommend that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied. Motion to Compel Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to provide further responses to three requests for production.1 26 1 Plaintiff also asks that defendants be required to pay him $11.80, which is the cost he incurred in filing his…

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.