Bradford v. Vella-Lopez et al
| Raymond Alford Bradford |
| I. Vella-Lopez, Clark, Moon, P. Rouch, L. Vasquez, C. Barnett and R. Madruga |
| 1:2011cv00990 |
| June 15, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Kings |
| Sheila K. Oberto |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
106
NOTICE AND ORDER Finding That Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Proceed In Forma Pauperis On The Appeal Filed April 27, 2015, ORDER Directing Clerk's Office To Serve Copy Of Order On Ninth Circuit (Doc. 105 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/30/2015. (Fahrney, E)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Post Security Deposit of $2,295.00 and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/10/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Re-Serve 92 Order Filed February 13, 2015, and GRANTING Thirty-Day Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/24/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER (1) Disregarding Declaration; (2) Adopting 83 Findings and Recommendations, (3) Denying Brooks' Motion to Dismiss, (4) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Yu's Motion, and (5) Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/13/15. Security Deposit of $2,295 Due to the Court Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 80 , Denying Plaintiff's Rule 56(D) Motions 52 , 61 , and Granting Defendant Peppercorn's Motion for Summary Judgment 46 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/8/15. (Verduzco, M)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER (1) DISREGARDING Premature Reply, (2) DENYING Motion to Strike Reply as Moot, (3) DISREGARDING Duplicative Opposition and Declaration, and (4) DENYING Motion to Strike as Moot 67 , 75 , 76 , 77 , and 78 ; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Reco mmending Defendant Yu's Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, and Motion to Sever Be Granted In Part and Denied In Part 60 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/11/14: 30-Day Deadline for Objections. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
80
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Rule 56(D) Motion Be Denied and Defendant Peppercorn's Summary Judgment Motion Be Granted 46 , 52 and 61 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/8/14: Matter referred to Judge Ishii; Thirty-Day Deadline for Objections. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending (1) Dismissal of Claims Arising from Appeals Process with Prejudice and (2) Leave to Amend Access to Courts and Medical Care Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/18/13. Referred to Judge Ishii; 30-Day Objection Deadline. (Verduzco, M)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER Denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration with Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 03/21/2013. (Flores, E)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER Denying 20 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/8/13. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice to Refiling With Submission of $350.00 Filing Fee in Full, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/23/11. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, 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
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.
