Baughman

(PC) Holmes v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 18, 20232:20-cv-01496California3,293 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TRAVELL C. HOLMES, No. 2:20-cv-1496 DAD DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they required him to use stairs despite having a “no stairs chrono” and he fell injuring his knee. Before the court is defendant Soltanian’s motion for terminating sanctions. For the reasons set forth below, this court recommends Soltanian’s motion be granted and Soltanian be dismissed from this action. BACKGROUND This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On screening, this court found plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims that each defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 27 …

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.