Virgil E. Holt v. P. Finander et al
| Virgil E. Holt |
| M. Acosta, C. Chin, Does, K. Donnelly, P. Finander, J. Fitter, R. Galura, S. Morris, W. Olukanmi and C. Wu |
| 2:2015cv05089 |
| July 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| James V. Selna |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| 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
169
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge James V. Selna for Amended Report and Recommendation (Issued) 163 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment 131 . IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgm ent is DENIED. The Court grants partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of whether he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against each of the defendants. All further proceedings shall be before the District Judge assigned. (see document for further details) (hr)
|
|
Filing
97
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson re Notice (Other), 93 (See Order for details) (rh)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 61 . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Donnelly, Galura, Morris, and Finand er are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend;(2) Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Fitter is DISMISSED with leave to amend; (3) Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Finander and Oluka nmi are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; (4) all claims against Defendants Does 1-10 are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and (5) within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either a Second Amended Complaint (sbu)
|
|
Filing
26
MINUTE ORDERby Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/1/2016. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with any of the dismissed claims, he may discharge this Order by filing: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of p erjury that establishes good cause for plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts December 14, 2015 order; and (2) copies of the USM-285 forms that were provided to the United States Marshal Service. Alternatively, if plaintiff does not wish to pursue any of the dismissed claims, he may file a Notice Of Dismissal. (rh)
|
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 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.
