Martin

(PC) Ardds v. Martin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 28, 20232:20-cv-00133California1,264 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER KENNETH MARTIN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s fully briefed motion to compel discovery is before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges that between August and November of 2019, defendants Kieu, Lundgren, and Bogacs (now known as Levin), who served on the IDTT committee, were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious mental health needs and failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 48.) //// 26 On November 21, 2022, those portions of the amended plaintiff that did not comply with the district court’s July 19, 2022 order were stricken. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) Plaintiff’s prior claims against other defendants,…

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.