Bristow

Bristow v. Ester

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20232:17-cv-02712California6,276 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY BRISTOW and MICHELLE No. 2:17-cv-02712-CKD

BRISTOW,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 14 RICHARD ESTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs Danny Bristow and Michelle Bristow brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of their rights under the Second and Fourth Amendments in connection with a search of their home. This matter is before the undersigned for all purposes including trial and entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ consent and the court’s order of March 31, 2023. (ECF No. 86.) A motion for summary judgment filed by defendants County of San Joaquin, Richard Ester, and Karen Sangster is before the court. (ECF No. 74.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the Monell claims, all claims against Karen Sangster, Danny Bristow’s claims under the Second Amendment, and Michelle Bristow’s excessive force claim. As to plaintiffs’ claims under…

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.