Legal Opinion
Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided April 15, 2026No. 1:21-cv-01551Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01551-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS 13 v. (Docs. 45, 46 & 47) 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Edward B. Spencer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 19 failure to protect claim against Defendant Lopez. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 On April 9, 2026, non-parties Levan Lee…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp.District Court, D. Nevada · 1997
- United States ex rel. O'Connell v. Chapman UniversityDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2007
- Moon v. SCP Pool Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
- In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings In Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.