Howard v. Nunley, et al.
| 1:2006cv00191 |
| February 21, 2006 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Anthony W. Ishii |
| William M. Wunderlich |
| 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
77
ORDER DENYING 75 Motion to Alter, Amend the Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(c), signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 10/28/2010. (Marrujo, C)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/24/2010. It is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60 ) is granted. It is FURTHER OREDERED that the Clerk enter judgmnet in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this case. CASE CLOSED. (Scrivner, E)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 8/16/2010. It is ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (doc. 66 ) is granted in part and denied in part is provided in doc. 65 . (Scrivner, E)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDERED that Plaintiff must File a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than August 9, 2010, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 07/16/2010.( Response due by 8/9/2010.) (Martin, S)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER DENYING 58 Motion to Compel EXCEPT that: (1) the Court will allow Plaintiffs responses to Defendants interrogatories and requests for admissions; and (2) Defendants must respond to Plaintiffs requests for admissions and produce the documents enumerated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file his pre-trial dispositive motions within the time frame allowed for his responses to Defendants pre-trial dispositive motions,if any. If Defendants do not file any pre-trial dispositive motions, Plaintiff shall have until August 6, 2010 to file his pre-trial dispositive motions. signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 7/1/2010. (Marrujo, C)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER DENYING 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Grant the Plaintiff Relief Within the 1983 Civil Complaint signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 5/12/2010. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER DENYING 50 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 04/06/2010. (Martin, S)
|
|
Filing
53
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY ORDER and SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 03/26/10. (Flores, E)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 1/12/2010. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (doc. # 26 ) is DENIED. (Scrivner, E)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER Denying Plaintiff Leave to File the Third Amended Complaint signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 12/02/2009. (Flores, E)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER for Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this 18 Action Should Not be Dismissed against Defendant Nunley for Failure to Prosecute unless Before then Plaintiff has Filed an Application for Entry of Default of Defendant Nunley or Defendant Nunley has Filed an Answer signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 11/13/2009. Show Cause Response due by 11/27/2009.(Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 11/9/2009. Show Cause Response due by 11/23/2009. (Sondheim, M)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 40 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 10/30/2009. (Bradley, A)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/3/09: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment 32 is DENIED. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER, signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 1/6/2009. It is ORDERED: The Amended Complaint 15 is dismissed for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejud ice. The portion of the Amended Complaint that seeks a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must include with this Order a copy of this judge's required form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. (Amended Complaint due by 2/11/2009) (Scrivner, E)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Howard v. Nunley, 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.
