Wilson v. Baker, et. al.
| 2:2006cv00537 |
| March 14, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Frank C. Damrell |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
90
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 06/18/10 ORDERING defendants' 08/27/09 motion for an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion 80 is granted. Also, RECOMMENDING that the 10/05/09 motion for summary judgment 82 be granted and this case closed. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 82 referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/13/09 ORDERING that 85 Motion for Extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants deadline to file areply to Plaintiffs opposition is extended to and including 12/9/09.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 9/4/2009 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 7/29/2009 are adopted in full; Dfts' motion to dismiss (Docket # 72) is denied; Dfts' 8/6/2009, motion for reconsideration (Docket # 78) is granted; dfts' summary judgment motion is due within thirty days of the date of this order.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/28/09 ORDERING plaintiff's motion to compel 74 and motion for an extension of time 75 are denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants' motion to dismiss 72 be denied. MOTION to DISMISS 72 referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/4/08 ORDERING that theFINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 11/13/07 23 are ADOPTED in full. All Claims contained in the third amended complaint but for the following are dismissed: 1) the Equial Protect ion claims against defendants Khoury Mitchell, Schwartz, Grannis, Pearson, Tilton and Kernan: 2) the retaliation claim against defendant Baker, and 3) the due process claims as to defendants Arnold, Mitchell, St. Germaine and Cullen as to Plaintiff's placement and retention in administrative segregation. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Wilson v. Baker, et. al. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
