Watson v. Ndoh et al
| David Watson |
| Rosemary Ndoh, M. Kircher, L. Wood and S. Haas |
| 1:2017cv00063 |
| October 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Kings |
| Gary S. Austin |
| 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
27
ORDER DENYING 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel as More Properly Brought at the Ninth Circuit signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/11/2018. cc: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
19
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Case be DISMISSED, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Under Section 1983, the Case be Subject to the "three-stikes" Provision Set Forth in 28 U.S. C. 1915(g) and the Clerk be Directed to Close the Case re 17 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/11/2018. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER STRIKING 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel for Lack of Signature, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/20/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:16-cv-2553 CMK PC) to Fresno (1:17-cv-0063 GSA PC) signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/12/2017. (Yin, K)
|
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.
