Coffee v. Sisto et al
| M L Coffee |
| D K Sisto, A Scotland, Eck, Wamble, Valencia, C Ferguson, S. Cervantes, N. Grannis, K. Esquire, Easterling, R Rivas and V. Singh |
| 2:2009cv00134 |
| January 15, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Monterey |
| William B. Shubb |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| 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
29
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/21/11 recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b). Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/09/11 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of non-opposition. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of M.L. Coffee signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/14/09. The clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit on the Director of CDC. The clerk of the court to also serve Financial with a copy of this order (cc: CDC Director and Financial)(Plummer, M)
|
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.
