Ronnie Lee v. People of The State of California

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Ronnie Lee v. People of The State of California

Ronnie Lee v. People of The State of California

Plaintiff:	Ronnie Lee
Defendant:	People of The State of California
Case Number:	2:2017cv00019
Filed:	January 3, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Frederick F. Mumm
Presiding Judge:	James V. Selna
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other

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
July 8, 2019	Filing 76 JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 75 . IT IS ADJUDGED that all counts against California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Second Amended Complaint) are dismissed with prejudice, Counts Five and Six against the County of Los Angeles are dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claim in Count Seven is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)
February 13, 2018	Filing 41 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT ORDER DEFENDANTS TO REIMBURSE THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR SERVICE EXPENSES by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (see attached) The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to show cause in writing, within 15 days of the date hereof, why the Court should not issue an order requiring defendants to reimburse the United States Marshal for the above-cited expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/28/2018. (jm)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 8, 2019

Filing 76 JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 75 . IT IS ADJUDGED that all counts against California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Second Amended Complaint) are dismissed with prejudice, Counts Five and Six against the County of Los Angeles are dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claim in Count Seven is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)

February 13, 2018

Filing 41 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT ORDER DEFENDANTS TO REIMBURSE THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR SERVICE EXPENSES by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (see attached) The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to show cause in writing, within 15 days of the date hereof, why the Court should not issue an order requiring defendants to reimburse the United States Marshal for the above-cited expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/28/2018. (jm)

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: Ronnie Lee v. People of The State of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ronnie Lee
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: People of The State of California
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?