Sandoval

Sandoval v. Guldseth

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 4, 20223:19-cv-01584California6,154 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALBERTO SANDOVAL, Case No.: 3:19-cv-1584-JO-RBB

CDCR #AM-0186,

ORDER: (1) GRANTING

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GULDSETH’S vs. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 46]

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.

DAVID GULDSETH, M.D, AND

Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

18 [ECF No. 55]

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Alberto Sandoval (“Plaintiff” or “Sandoval”), currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. In his complaint, Sandoval claims that Dr. David Guldseth violated his constitutional right to adequate medical care while he was housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”).1 See id.

26 1 On February 11, 2022, Sandoval filed a motion which indicated he had changed addresses. See ECF No. 49. According to…

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.