Washington v. Scribner, et al
| Roderick Washington |
| A K Scribner, Gregory - Smith, George M Galaza, Gomez, - Madding and - Stainer |
| 1:2003cv05287 |
| March 10, 2003 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Kings |
| Lawrence J. O'Neill |
| William M. Wunderlich |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
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
91
ORDER Dismissing Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With a Court Order, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/20/11. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/6/2011. Response Due in Ten Days. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Respond to Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/15/11: Plaintiff shall notify the Court on or before 4/8/2011, of his intent to proceed in this action. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER DENYING 85 and 86 Plaintiff's Motions Seeking Service of Third Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/16/2010. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
75
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 1/22/2009. Motion referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 2/24/2009. (Sondheim, M)
|
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 Eastern 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.
