Tholmer v. Pliler, et al
| Lionell Ernest Tholmer |
| Cheryl Pliler, T Rosario, G Stratton, S Stiles, Jimmy Walker, B - Mayfield, S. Vance, R. Morrow, V Menni, G. Wilson and V Mini |
| 2:2004cv01368 |
| November 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
160
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/14/2010 RECOMMENDING that dfts' 127 motion for summary judgment be granted; pltf's 154 motion for summary judgment be denied; summary judgment be entered in favor of dfts; and the clerk be directed to enter judgment and close this case. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 03/31/10 ordering plaintiff's request for court assistance in obtaining the service information for S. Stiles 120 is granted to the extent that the court authorizes plaintiff to serve on the defendants, within the next 30 days, no more than a total of 5 interrogatories in an attempt to discover service information for S. Stiles. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/17/09 DENYING 130 Motion to Compel; DENYING 131 Motion to Compel as untimely. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/8/09 ORDERING that the MOTION for Reconsideration 119 is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's 6/24/09 Order is affirmed and no further motions for reconsideration of this order will be considered. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/06/09 ordering defendants Morrow, Wilson and Stratton shall respond to the discovery requests plaintiff served on or about 05/10/09, and 05/16/09, on or before 07/31/09. Plaintiff may propound additional discovery requests on defendants Pliler, Morrow, Wilson and Stratton until 07/24/09. Defendants Pliler, Morrow, Wilson and Stratton may propound additional discovery requests on plaintiff until 07/24/09. Responses to any additional disc overy requests authorized herein shall be due 45 days after the request is served. No party may serve any discovery requests after 07/24/09. Except for the additional discovery herin, no additional discovery may be propounded at this time. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/6/09 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court is directed to forward the instructions for service of process, the completed summons forms, copies of the third amended complaint, and a copy of this o rder and the courts Order re: Consent or Request for Reassignment to the United States Marshal; Within 10 days from the date of this order, the United States Marshal isdirected to notify defendant(s) of the commencement of this action and to request a waiver of service of summons. (cc USM Priority) (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER VACATING 97 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/15/09 ORDERING the clerk to send pltf another new summons; and w/in 20 days, pltf to submit to the court the properly completed summons required to effect service on dfts Pliler, Stratton, Stiles, Wilson and Morrow.(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.
