Legal Opinion

(PC) Linder v. Pucelik

District Court, E.D. California

Decided August 10, 2021No. 2:18-cv-02281Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUANE LINDER, No. 2:18-CV-2281-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JAMES S. PUCELIK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 42. Because 19 discovery is disputed, the Court defers consideration of the motion under Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 56(d)(1). The Court will reopen discovery and reset the discovery schedule. 21 I.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  2. Harvinder Singh v. American Honda Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  3. United States v. Bernice T. MoralesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1992
  4. In Re Tim THEMY, Dba Brinecell Manufacturing Co., Debtor. Tim THEMY, Dba Brinecell Manufacturing Co., Appellant, v. Jason YU, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
  5. Panatronic Usa, a California General Partnership Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API