Verduzco

Verduzco v. Price

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20224:19-cv-01440California4,984 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former staff members of Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), 15 where Plaintiff was formerly housed. The operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint 16 (“TAC”). (ECF No, 93.) Summary judgment was previously granted to certain Defendants. 17 Defendants Hannah Bush, Lieutenant Basso, and Rook remain. Basso and Rook filed a joint 18 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 126), and Bush filed a separate motion for summary 19 judgment (ECF No. 127). Plaintiff has opposed both motions, and Defendants have filed reply 20 briefs. Plaintiff has also filed numerous motions, memoranda, and other documents, and 21 Defendants have filed additional miscellaneous motions. 22 After consideration of the entire record and all papers filed by the parties, the motions for 23 summary judgment are GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motion “for evidence” (ECF No. 147) is DENIED, 24 Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (ECF Nos. 148, 164) are GRANTED, Plaintiff’s ex 25 parte motion (ECF No. 172) is DENIED, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s…

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.