Kirsch

(PC) Woods v. Kirsch

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 12, 20242:22-cv-00640California1,237 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LYNN WOODS, No. 2:22-cv-00640-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER SMITH, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 11, 2022 and filed his third amended complaint (TAC) on December 27, 2022. ECF Nos. 1 and 15. After screening the TAC, this court found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding treatment of his eye condition at Mule Creek State Prison stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Christopher Smith and Alan Kirsch. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff now moves to compel defendant Kirsch to produce documents, a motion defendant Kirsch has opposed. ECF Nos. 35 and 36. For the following reasons, the court will grant the motion. 26 1 Defendant’s opposition regularly refers to plaintiff as “she.” Plaintiff, however, is a male who was treated by defendant at…

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.