(PC) Hesse v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 20242:21-cv-01931California5,298 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL HESSE, No. 2:21-cv-1931 WBS KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, now proceeding pro se. The motion for summary judgment filed by County defendants1 is before the court. As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted. Background County defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on September 25, 2023, while plaintiff was represented by counsel. (ECF No. 46.) On September 26, 2023, the parties were informed that all motions would be submitted on the papers, Local Rule 230(l), and that plaintiff should file an opposition within 21 days from the minute order. (ECF No. 47.) No opposition was filed by plaintiff’s counsel.

“County defendants” are County of Sacramento, Lynn Billet, Phoebe Foo, and Dr. Andrew Ho. Defendant Dr. Sanga is represented by separate counsel,…

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.