Legal Opinion

Quiroz v. Horel

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 31, 2015No. C 11-0016 LHK (PR)PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REFERRING CASE TO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

(Docket Nos. 267, 291)

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a third amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that prison official defendants violated his federal and state law rights. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment.1 Defendants have also filed a supplemental brief. (Docket No. 290.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition.2 Defendants have filed a reply. Having carefully considered the papers submitted,…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. (PC) Deegan v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  2. (PC) Henderson v. LizzaragaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. (PC) Sage v. DawsonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  4. (PC) Thornberry v. KernanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  5. (PC) Thornberry v. KernanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021

14 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