Martinez v. Ziomek et al
| Steve Martinez |
| John Ziomek, M. Martel, Christopher Smith, Wesley Hashimoto, Karen Todd and Brett Williams |
| 2:2008cv00674 |
| March 31, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Amador |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| 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
85
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 04/30/12 DISMISSING CASE pursuant to FRCP 41(a). CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/16/12 DENYING 79 Motion for Reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge's January 4, 2012, order is AFFIRMED. No further motions for reconsideration of this order will be considered. (Kaminski, H) Modified on 3/19/2012 (Meuleman, A).
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER denying 71 Motion for a referral to mediation signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/17/11. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 09/12/11 ORDERING that plf's 68 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; plf's 69 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; plf may file a respond to the 67 Motion for Summary Judgment w/i 30 days. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 05/12/11 granting 54 Motion to compel. Defendants shall reserve plaintiff with the request for admissions which are still relevant to the issues in this case, within 15 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff shall respond appropriately, either admitting or denying each request within 30 days of the date the requests are reserved. Plaintiff may not object to any of the requests on the basis that he is proceeding pro se or that the reque sts are misleading. If plaintiff fails to provide timely or appropriate responses, defendants may renew their motion to compel, and the court will grant their request to deem the matters submitted. Defendants' motion for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline 57 is granted. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 07/20/11. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER denying 53 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 01/26/11. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/16/10 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations 35 are adopted in full; Defendants' motion to dismiss 30 is granted; Defendants Williams and Smith are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff's claims are limited to those regarding his ankle which arose between 11/11/05, and 3/08; dismissal of defendant Todd is confirmed; this action shall proceed against defendants Hashimoto and Ziomek only; Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint 22 is denied as moot; and this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/27/10 ORDERING that the court GRANTS plaintiff's request for reconsideration 42 , and WITHDRAWS the order adopting the magistrate judges findings and recommendations, entered on March 31, 2010 38 . Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that requests for further extension of time are unlikely to be granted. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/21/2010 DENYING 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Engbretson, K.)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/30/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 35 ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' motion to dismiss 30 is GRANTED; dfts Williams and Smith are DISMISSED; pltf's claims are limited to those r egarding his ankle which arose between 11/11/05 and March 2008; the dismissal of dft Todd is confirmed; dfts' motion to dismiss original complaint 22 is DENIED AS MOOT; dfts Hashimoto and Ziomek are directed to file an answer within 20 days of this order. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
35
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 03/03/10 recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss 30 be granted. Defendants Williams and Smith be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim. Pl aintiff's claims be limited to those regarding his ankle which arose between 11/11/05 and March 2008. The dismissal of defendant Todd be confirmed. This action should proceed against defendants Hashimoto and Ziomek only. Defendants motion to d ismiss the original complaint 22 be denied as moot. Defendants Hashimoto and Ziomek be directed to file an answer within 20 days of the order adopting these recommendations. MOTIONS to DISMISS 22 , 30 referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 04/01/09 ordering plaintiff's request 26 is denied as unnecessary. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/10/09 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 11/21/08 13 are ADPTED in full. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against defendants Todd and Marte; Defendants Todd and Martel are DISMISSED from this action; And this matter proceeds against defendants Ziomek, Williams, Smith and Hashimoto. (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
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.
