Robinson v. Contreras et al
| 1:2005cv01397 |
| February 28, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Lawrence J. O'Neill |
| Lawrence J. O'Neill |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
37
ORDER, signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 4/16/2010. It is ORDERED Granting without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 27 ). It is Further ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED. (Scrivner, E)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 35 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 8/18/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 4/20/2009. (Lundstrom, T)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING 18 Plaintiff's Letter as MOOT and Directing the Clerk of the Court to Forward Service Documents to the U.S. Marshal signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 2/12/2009. (Figueroa, O)
|
|
Filing
9
FIRST INFORMATIONAL ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/27/06. (Carter-Ford, R)
|
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: Robinson v. Contreras 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.
