Puckett

Puckett v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 11, 20232:22-cv-00350California877 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEREMY PHILLIP PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et la., Defendants. 16 As explained by the assigned District Judge: This action arises from [plaintiff’s] prosecution and conviction for the robbery and murder of Anthony Galati. In 2020, almost 19 years later, the California superior court granted plaintiff’s writ of habeas corpus and vacated his convictions. A year later, the superior court found plaintiff factually innocent. Plaintiff then filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In broad strokes, he alleges the defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights by withholding or ignoring exonerating evidence. 22 (ECF No. 36 at 2.) On September 8, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on October 13, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF Nos. 42 & 43.) On September 29, 2023,…

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.