Larry A Jackson v. Sue Hughes

Larry A Jackson v. Sue Hughes

Defendant:	Sue Hughes
:
Case Number:	2:2001cv04041
Filed:	August 20, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
Presiding Judge:	Patrick J. Walsh
Presiding Judge:	Terry J. Hatter
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 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:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 20, 2009	Filing 48 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: In April 2003, the Court issued a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of Hydrick, et al. v. Wilson, CV 98-7167-TJH (RNBx)--a case which may be controlling on all issues r aised by Plaintiffs Complaint. At that time, the Court denied all pending motions without prejudice.In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion in Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007). In May 2009, the Supreme Court vacat ed that decision in light of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___ (2009). See Hunter v. Hydrick, --- S. Ct. ---, 2009 WL 1443637 (May 26, 2009). Before the Court lifts the stay and places the matter back on calendar, Plaintiff is ordered to notify the C ourt no later than September 21, 2009, his position on whether he intends to pursue this case or not. If he does not file anything, the stay will be lifted and the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The parties are requested to discuss the applicability of Iqbal in any motion (or opposition). (im)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 20, 2009

Filing 48 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: In April 2003, the Court issued a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of Hydrick, et al. v. Wilson, CV 98-7167-TJH (RNBx)--a case which may be controlling on all issues r aised by Plaintiffs Complaint. At that time, the Court denied all pending motions without prejudice.In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion in Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007). In May 2009, the Supreme Court vacat ed that decision in light of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___ (2009). See Hunter v. Hydrick, --- S. Ct. ---, 2009 WL 1443637 (May 26, 2009). Before the Court lifts the stay and places the matter back on calendar, Plaintiff is ordered to notify the C ourt no later than September 21, 2009, his position on whether he intends to pursue this case or not. If he does not file anything, the stay will be lifted and the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The parties are requested to discuss the applicability of Iqbal in any motion (or opposition). (im)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Larry A Jackson v. Sue Hughes
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Represented By:	A Howard Matz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Sue Hughes
Represented By:	Eric D Bates
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?