Carr v. Cate et al
| Orrin Carr |
| Matthew Cate and James Yates |
| 1:2008cv01931 |
| December 17, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Fresno |
| Gary S. Austin |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
101
STIPULATION and ORDER DISMISSING Action, with Prejudice signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/4/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
86
NOTICE of This Court's Expedited Trial Setting Procedures Upon Consent of All Parties signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/27/2015. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
71
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Granting Defendants' 48 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissing Action, with Prejudice; Objections Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 2/21/2012. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 3/26/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER overruling 63 Objections to 61 Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/25/2012. (Lundstrom, T)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Continuance Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Docs. 56 & 57 ), ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production Of Documents (Docs. 35 & 33 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/26/2011. (Fahrney, E)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/22/2011 VACATING 36 Order on Motion for Reconsideration and requiring Plaintiff to file a complete response to 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Filing Deadline: 1/25/2012). (Lundstrom, T)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File a Limited Response to Defendants' 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or, in the Alternative, File a Response Showing he is Entitled to Relief Pursuant to Rule 56(d); Response Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/22/2011. Response Due by 9/26/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion 54 and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/1/11. Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due Septemeber 6, 2011. (Verduzco, M)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER GRANTING 44 Defendant's Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 4/22/2011. Dispositive Motions due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/31/2011. (Flores, E)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER GRANTING, In Part, Plaintiff's 35 Motion For Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and GRANTING, In Part, Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 1/7/2011. (Marrujo, C)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER STRIKING 31 Motion for Extension of Time and 32 Opposition as moot signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/30/2010. (Martin, S)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Compel, without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/25/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 9/11/10: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)
|
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.
