Pedersen v. Ryan et al
| 2:2009cv02330 |
| November 5, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prisoner - Prison Condition Office |
| David K Duncan (PS) |
| Mary H Murguia |
| 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
30
ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 3/31/11.(REW)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER that Count I (in part) is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants Ryan, Baca, Matson, Burke, and Branch must answer Count I (in part). The Clerk must send Plaintiff a service packet including 8 Second Amended Complaint, this Order, and both s ummons and request for waiver forms for Defendants Ryan, Baca, Matson, Burke, and Branch. Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/1/10. (LSP)
|
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 Arizona 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: Pedersen v. Ryan 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.
