Valdez v. Beard et al
| Ruben Valdez |
| Jeffrey Beard, R. S. Lambert, J. Mahoney, J. Cano and T. Kraay |
| 1:2014cv01839 |
| November 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Kings |
| Michael J. Seng |
| 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
108
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 106 Motion; and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Defendant's 85 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/27/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Non-Cognizable Claims 96 ; CASE TO REMAIN OPEN, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/25/2018. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 85 ; NOTICE and WARNINIG of Requirements for Opposing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/15/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 88 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/22/2018: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
96
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Non-Cognizable Claims be DISMISSED re 16 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/22/2018. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's 83 Request for Copies signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 01/10/2018. (Flores, E)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 74 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/22/2017. (Hellings, J)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 81 In Full and Dismissing Defendant Romo Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(M), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/11/17. Romo terminated (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
81
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Defendant Romo be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4(m) for Failure to effect timely service re 16 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Ruben Valdez ;referred to Judge Ishii; ORDER DENYING 73 Motion to Stay,signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/11/17.(Objections to F&R due 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER adopting in part 42 Findings and Recommendations and granting in part 26 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/15/2016. (Filing Deadline: 10/19/2016). (Lundstrom, T)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Correct His Opposition, (2) DENYING Plaintiff's 33 Motion to File an Amended Complaint, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge to This Case; and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant In Pary and Deny In Part Defendants' 26 MOTION to DISMISS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/16. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER Denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/11/16. (Gonzalez, R)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 9 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 01/26/15. (Martin-Gill, S)
|
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.
