Cejas v. Paramo et al
| Andrew A. Cejas |
| Daniel Paramo, S. Rutledge, R. Olson and J. Ramires |
| 3:2014cv01923 |
| August 15, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| William V. Gallo |
| William Q. Hayes |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
159
ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference: Status Conference set for 11/14/2023 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez Jr.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr on 10/30/2023.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(exs)
|
|
Filing
150
( Status Conference set for 4/11/2023 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo.), ORDER Setting Video Joint Status Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 4/10/23.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (djk)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER denying 145 Motion to Appoint Expert; denying 146 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 3/31/2023. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (djk)
|
|
Filing
140
Order Denying 134 without Prejudice Motion to Appoint Counsel: TeleConference set for 12/14/2022 09:30 AM before Judge Jinsook Ohta. A video conference link will be provided to the parties by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the teleconference.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 11/29/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(exs)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is stayed for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. After the sixty-day period, the stay will be lifted and proceedings will resume in this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Request for Appointment of Counsel 118 is Denied without prejudice to refile. Plaintiff may file refile any Request for Appointment of Counsel within forty-five (45) days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/27/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mme)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 115 ) is adopted in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status and Dismiss Case (ECF No. 106 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/08/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
115
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 106 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Plaintiff's Failure to Disclose Income and Assets in In Forma Pauperis Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by S. Rutledge, Jaime, Strayhorn Objections to R&R due by 10/4/2019. No reply briefs in response to the Objections will be accepted. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 09/19/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mme)
|
|
Filing
111
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Plaintiff's 97 MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Andrew A. Cejas. Objections to R&R due by 10/1/2019 and Replies due by 10/10/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 9/9/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 82 ) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 71 is granted as follows: (1) All allegations against Olson and Ramirez are dismissed with prejudice f or failure to serve. (2) Plaintiff's second cause of action, except for Plaintiff's claims regarding access to the court, the equal protection portion of Plaintiff's third cause of action, and Plaintiff's fourth cause of action ag ainst Rutledge, Strayhorn, and Jaime is dismissed with prejudice because they are entitled to qualified immunity. (3) Plaintiff's third cause of action against defendants Rutledge, Strayhorn, and Jaime regarding due process violations is dismis sed with prejudice because the claims are not cognizable under § 1983; and (4) The monetary damages claims pursuant to RLUIPA are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/28/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
82
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 71 ). Objections to R&R due by 02/15/2019. Any Reply to the objections due by 02/22/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 01/17/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER Denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 01/09/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 73 ) is adopted in its entirety. The motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 46 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 08/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER Denying 56 Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 07/30/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
73
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 46 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Andrew A. Cejas. Court recommends that the motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2018. Replies due by 8/17/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 7/9/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 54 ) is Adopted in its Entirety. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 53 ) is Granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/31/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
54
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting 53 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend. Objections to R&R due by 4/18/2018. Replies due by 5/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 04/04/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER Adopting in full 29 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's motion to dismiss 17 is Granted as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Jaime and Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Paramo. The motion to dismiss is Denied as moot as to any retaliation claim against Defendant Strayhorn (See 24 at 15; 29 at 8 n.3). It is further Ordered that Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 37 are Overruled. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 09/01/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
29
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re MOTION To Dismiss (Dkt # 17 ): Objections to R&R due by 5/5/2017. Replies due by 5/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 3/28/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER Granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Summons and Complaint. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the accoun t exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/19/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (Order mailed to S. Kernan. dlg)
|
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 Southern 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.
