Legal Opinion

(PC) Haraszewski v. Knipp

District Court, E.D. California

Decided August 12, 2020No. 2:13-cv-02494Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI, No. 2:13-cv-2494 JAM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KNIPP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel and to amend the third amended complaint. 20 For the reasons set forth below, this court denies the motion to compel and recommends the 21 motion to amend be denied. 22 MOTION TO COMPEL 23 Plaintiff’s motion to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

11 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