Rhinehart

Rhinehart v. Montgomery

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 20243:22-cv-00678California3,509 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL JOSEPH RHINEHART, Case No.: 22-CV-678 JLS (MMP)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

v. MOTION TO REVOKE

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden;

STATUS

J. RODRIGUEZ, Correctional Officer;

15 and ARVIZU, Correctional Officer, (ECF No. 19) 16 Defendants. 17 Presently before the Court is a Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status (“Mot.,” ECF No. 19), a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof (“Mem.,” ECF No. 19-1), and a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN,” ECF No. 19-2) filed by Defendants J. Rodriguez and Arvizu (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff Michael Joseph Rhinehart filed an Opposition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 31) to Defendants’ Motion, and Defendants responded with a Reply (“Reply,” ECF No. 32). The Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having carefully considered the Parties’ arguments and the…

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.