Santos Adam Saldivar Jr v. Stanley Sniff Jr
| Santos Adam Saldivar, Jr and Santos Adam Saldivar, Jr. |
| Stanley Sniff, Jr and Chad Bianco |
| 2:2021cv01815 |
| February 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stanley Blumenfeld |
| Karen E Scott |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Prisoner Civil Rights) #1 as to Defendant Chad Bianco. (es) |
Filing 9
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States Marshal is authorized to proceed with service of process upon the following defendants only without prepayment of cost, until further Order of the Court: Sheriff Chad Bianco, official capacity. (es)
|
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS): Order re Service of Process by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: The Marshal shall serve Defendants as directed in the Order Directing Service of Process by the United States Marshal, which is issued concurrently with this order. [See document for details.] (es)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Change of address Changing plaintiffs address to Centinella State Prison P O Box 931 Imperial CA 92251. Filed by Plaintiff Santos Adam Saldivar, Jr. (es) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: granting #5 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fee. It is further ORDERED that the prisoner-plaintiff owes the Court the initial filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing fee of $50.00 must be paid within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Court in accordance with this order. (jdo)
|
| Filing 5 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Santos Adam Saldivar, Jr. (es) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Denying #2 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff may re-submit the IFP application and Complaint to this Court, if submitted with the Certified Trust Account Statement and Disbursement Authorization. Plaintiff shall utilize the same case number. If plaintiff fails to submit the required documents within 30 days, this case shall be DISMISSED. IT WAS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees be DENIED by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Reasons: Failure to authorize disbursements from prison trust account to pay the filing fees. Failure to provide certified copy of trust fund statement for the last six months. Failure to submit Request to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support (Form CV60-P attached). (gk)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (et) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES OR REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CV-93). (et) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Defendant Stanley Sniff, Jr pursuant to 42:1983. Case assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott., filed by Plaintiff Santos Adam Saldivar, Jr. (et) |
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 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.
