Amina Trinity Bennett-Martin v. San Bernardino Valley Community College et al
| Amina Trinity Bennett-Martin |
| J. Braum, Carego, County of San Bernardino, Does, Oleaves, Jose Placencia, A. Rochester, San Bernardino Valley Community College, G. Sanchez, K. Sandoval, Kenneth Stills, Tomayo and A. Valacas |
| 5:2016cv01165 |
| September 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Eastern Division - Riverside Office |
| Michael W. Fitzgerald |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
142
JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF AMINA TRINITY BENNETT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Judgment on all claims is entered in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of her First Amended Complaint. The action is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants are awarded their costs as provided by law. (iv)
|
|
Filing
84
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson re Stipulation for Protective Order 83 (See Order for details) (rh)
|
|
Filing
5
by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/18/2016. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of her case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b) andLocal Rule 41-1. (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.
