Arnold

(PC) Daniels v. Arnold

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 20232:16-cv-00551California4,596 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TED DARNELL DANIELS, No. 2:16-cv-0551 KJM AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND ERIC ARNOLD, et al., FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a California state inmate, proceeds pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 59); defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63); plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 72); and plaintiff’s motion to strike (74). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint alleges inadequate medical care related to the treatment of a skin condition and related concerns regarding medication side effects, covering a period of approximately 14 years and naming numerous medical providers and prison officials as defendants. On screening, the undersigned found that the complaint supported a single Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Lotersztian. ECF No. 27 (findings 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.