McCurdy

McCurdy v. Deal

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20195:17-cv-01043California8,634 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

JAMES MCCURDY,

11 Case No. 17-01043 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 14 M. RIVERO, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 118) 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at various institutions. The Court found the 20 amended complaint, (Docket No. 11, hereinafter “Am. Compl.”), stated cognizable claims 21 under the Eighth Amendment and ordered Defendants to file a motion for summary 22 judgment or other dispositive motion.1 (Docket No. 13.) 23 1 The Court granted in part a motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust 24 administrative remedies filed by San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) Defendants Alvarez, Deal, Devers, Leighton, Pratt, Tootell, and Wu, along with Pelican Bay State Prison 25 (“PBSP”) Defendants Jacobsen, McLean, and Thomas, and joined in by Defendants Lee and Rivero. …

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.