Tommy Roy Keeton v. G. Marshall et al
Plaintiff: Tommy Roy Keeton
Defendant: T. Chapman and G. Marshall
Case Number: 2:2017cv01213
Filed: February 15, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Fernando M. Olguin
Presiding Judge: Karen L. Stevenson
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 60 JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 59 . IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)
September 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 59 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 54 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Revoking Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status 44 . IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Motion is GRANTED; (2) the Order granting Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees (Dkt. No. 4) is VACATED; and (2) the Complaint shall be DISMISSED without prejudice as to all defendants and claims unless, within thirty days of this Order, Plaintiff pays the full required filing fee of $400.00. (see order for further details) (hr)
September 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 28 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint (the "Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court dismissed the initial Complaint with leave to amend, but on July 27, 2017, the Court directed service of the Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC") (Dkt. No. 18) and ordered Plaintiff to file with the Court, within 30 days, copies of the USM-285 forms that he submitted to the U.S. Marshal. (Dkt. No. 21; see also Dkt. Nos. 22, 23.) More than two weeks have now passed since Plaintiff's August 26, 2017 deadline for filing copies of the USM-28 5 forms with the Court, and the Court has not received copies of Plaintiff's completed USM-285 forms or any other filing reflecting compliance with the Court's July 27, 2017 Order. In the interests of justice, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before October 5, 2017, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (gr)
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: Tommy Roy Keeton v. G. Marshall et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: T. Chapman
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: G. Marshall
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 ]
Plaintiff: Tommy Roy Keeton
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?