Legal Opinion
O'KEEFE v. Murphy
District Court, E.D. Washington
Decided August 8, 1994No. CY-93-3122-AAMPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
McDONALD, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct.Rec. 23. On hearing without oral argument, Plaintiff appeared pro se. Defendants were represented by Douglas W. Carr of the Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, Washington. For the reasons set out below, the Court denies defendants’ motion and grants summary judgment to plaintiff.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION
The parties agree on the following material facts. O’Keefe is a Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) inmate; defendants are administrators of WSP. In early…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schenck v. EdwardsDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1996
- O'Keefe v. Van BoeningCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2987, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4967 Timothy Dale O'Keefe v. Ronald Van Boening, Wsp Associate Superintendent James Spalding, Director Dop Carol A. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996