Quezada v. State of California, et al.
|Plaintiff:||Jose Miguel Quezada|
|Defendant:||Swanson, State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Morales|
|Filed:||July 9, 2020|
|Court:||US District Court for the Eastern District of California|
|Presiding Judge:||Stanley A Boone|
|Referring Judge:||Dale A Drozd|
|Nature of Suit:||Prisoner: Civil Rights|
|Cause of Action:||42 U.S.C. § 1983|
|Jury Demanded By:||Plaintiff|
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
|Date Filed||Document Text|
|September 2, 2020||Filing 6 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/2/2020. The #5 Motion to Dismiss currently noticed for 10/7/2020 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone is VACATED and RESET for 10/6/2020 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. The parties are advised that pursuant to General Order No. 617, addressing the public health emergency posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, all civil motions set for hearing before District Judge Dale A. Drozd will be decided on the papers. The parties should not contact Judge Drozd's chambers to inquire about whether a hearing on a pending motion will be held. If the court determines that a hearing is necessary, the court will issue an order to specially set the motion for hearing by telephone or video conference. In accordance with Judge Drozd's Standing Order in Light of Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California, the hearing date selected by the movant will continue to govern the deadlines for opposition and reply briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). (Thorp, J)|
|August 31, 2020||Filing 5 MOTION to DISMISS by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Morales, State of California, Swanson. Motion Hearing set for 10/7/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Attachments: #1 Points and Authorities, #2 Proof of Service)(Hennes, Lucas)|
|August 14, 2020||Filing 4 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND CONTINUING THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO NOVEMBER 17, 2020. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendants request to for an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, is GRANTED; Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before August 31, 2020; The scheduling conference set for September 14, 2020, is CONTINUED to November 17, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9; and The parties shall file a joint scheduling report seven (7) days prior to the continued date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/14/2020. (Hernandez, M)|
|August 14, 2020||Filing 3 REQUEST for Extension of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, to File Responsive Pleading; Declaration of Lucas L. Hennes by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Morales, State of California, Swanson. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Proof of Service)(Hennes, Lucas)|
|July 9, 2020||Filing 2 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED: Initial Scheduling Conference set for 9/14/2020 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order, #2 Standing Order re Judicial Emergency, #3 Order re Consent, #4 VDRP) (Rivera, O)|
|July 9, 2020||RECEIPT number #CAE100046028 $400.00 fbo State of California by State of California on 7/9/2020. (Sant Agata, S)|
|July 8, 2020||Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-20-100934 by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hennes, Lucas)|
Access additional case information on PACER
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
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- 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.