Stone v. Vasquez, et al
| 1:2005cv01377 |
| March 7, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Lawrence J. O'Neill |
| William M. Wunderlich |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
112
ORDER GRANTING Defendants Vasquez and Rodriguez's 79 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to enter Judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiff; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Remove Document 39 from the Court's pending Motion list; ORDER for Clerk of Court to Close this Case signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 1/12/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration and denying 95 Motion for a modified court order signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 10/20/2009. (Lundstrom, T)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to Respond to 79 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Within Thirty Days; Defendants' One Additional Affidavit Regarding Discovery Required Herein is Due Within Ten Days; Contemporaneous to Filing This Affidav it, Defendants Shall Also Respond to 89 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 9/22/2009. Defendants' Affidavit and Response to Motion for Reconsideration due by 10/5/2009. Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/28/2009. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 80 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 9/3/2009. ( Defendants Supplemental Memoranda Filing Deadline: 9/14/2009) (Figueroa, O)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 70 Motion to Compel; ORDER that all Supplemental Memoranda Ordered Herein are due Within 14 Days of the Date of This Order; ORDER that all Production Ordered Herein is Due to Plaintiff Wit hin 20 Days of the Date of this Order; ORDER that the Dispositive Motion Deadline of August 28, 2009 is Confirmed; Order Confirming that Defendants Have Waived the Ability to Rely on Anything they Claim is Not in their Custody and Control for Purpose of Moving for Summary Judgment or at Trial, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 8/19/2009. (Sondheim, M)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 4/29/09: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint 43 is GRANTED; Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to April 21, 2009 41 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's motions for Leave of Court 46 , 47 are GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend 43 is GRANED; The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff's lodged amended complaint 44 into the record. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion fro Trial on Damages as Moot, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 1/22/2009. (Sondheim, M)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 32 MOTION for EXTENSION of TIME to FILE ANSWER, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 1/21/2009. Responsive Pleading due by 2/23/2009. (Sondheim, M)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge William M. Wunderlich on 3/6/06. (Keeler, P)
|
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
| Search for this case: Stone v. Vasquez, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
