Moore

Moore v. Flores

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 2, 20245:23-cv-02065California1,794 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RYAN T. MOORE, AL1638, Case No. 23-cv-02065-SK (PR)

8 Plaintiff,

SECOND ORDER OF SERVICE

9 v.

10 FLORES, Correctional Officer, (ECF No. 8) 11 Defendant(s).

12 On October 27, 2023, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations in the operative First 13 Amended Complaint (FAC) that on July 21, 2022 San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) Correctional 14 Officer Flores eavesdropped on his video visit with his attorney and chilled his right to have 15 further video visits arguably states a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Flores for a 16 possible violation of Plaintiff’s right of meaningful access to the courts and ordered the claim 17 served on Flores via the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) e- 18 service pilot program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. See ECF No. 10 at 2. 19 But on October 31, 2023, CDCR promptly responded that it was “unable to identify” 20 Flores based on the information provided. ECF No. 11 at 1. In…

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.