Munoz

Munoz v. Gipson

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 19, 20243:21-cv-07176California9,934 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1 A. Muñoz’s Eighth Amendment Claims 2 On September 16, 2021, Muñoz, a former prisoner who has since been discharged from 3 parole, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment claims 4 stemming from his previous incarcerations at KVSP and PBSP. Dkt. 1. Muñoz sues all of the 5 named defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 6. He seeks the following: 6 $250,000.00 in compensatory damages and $50,000.00 in punitive damages from each defendant; 7 declaratory judgment that his federal constitutional rights have been violated; and costs. Id. at 17.3 8 1. Muñoz’s Version 9 The Court summarizes Muñoz’s allegations in his complaint by taking the following from 10 Judge Tigar’s May 12, 2022 service order: 11 Sometime in 2020, while housed at KVSP, Plaintiff submitted a 12 grievance requesting release pursuant to California Governor Newsom’s emergency order requiring defendants Diaz and Kelso to 13 release inmates who ar[e] non-violent and fit certain criteria for release under Cal. Gov’t Code § 8658. In response, on June 18, 2020, 14 a KVSP classification…

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.