Williams v. Sandham et al
| 2:2005cv00164 |
| January 26, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Ralph R. Beistline |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
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
199
ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/10/13 ordering the Custodian to produce Curtis J. Williams at 05/13/13 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 6 before District Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out-to-Court Desk. (cc: OTCD)(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/16/2013 ORDERING the Clerk to forward to plaintiff 10 blank subpoena forms; the Clerk is to terminate Dckt. Nos. 157 , 158 . (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/19/12 ordering the custodian to produce Curtis J. Williams at 2/11/13 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 6 before Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the custodian and Out-to-Court Desk. (cc: OTCD) (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
152
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/10/2012 DENYING 151 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER ADOPTING 143 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/5/12. Dfts' 8/2/11 request for the entry of summary judgment is DENIED. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
143
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/15/11 recommending that defendants' 08/02/11 request for the entry of summary judgment in their favor at the pretrial conference be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/29/2011 DENYING 141 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 03/31/11 ADOPTING in full 137 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING both 125 , 127 Motions to Dismiss both premised on plaintiffs failure to file a timely pretrial statement; Defendants are directed to file their pretrial statement no later than 30 daysfrom the date of service of this order. (Williams, D)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/19/11 signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/19/11. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants' motions to dismiss 125 and 127 , both premised on p laintiff's failure to file a timely pretrial statement be denied. Defendants be directed to file their pretrial statment no later than 30 days after any order adopting the findings and recommendations. MOTIONS to DISMISS 125 , 127 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/6/2010 ORDERING that dfts are RELIEVED of their obligation to file a pretrial statement; and the hearings on their motions to dismiss are VACATED; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute; dfts' motions to dismiss be denied as moot; and the clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER adopting 122 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/29/10: Defendant Steen's April 21, 2010 114 Motion is denied and is stricken. Plaintiff's May 13, 2010 116 Motion is denied as moot. Plainti ff is directed to file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial within thirty days of the date of this order. Defendants are directed to file their pretrial statement not later than thirty days after the filing of plaintiff's statement. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
122
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/12/10 recommending that defendant STeen's 04/21/10 motion to amend pretrial scheduling order and for leave to file a renewed motion for summary judgment 114 be con strued as a request for reconsideration of this court's 03/29/07 order denying summary judgment of plaintiff's claim that defendant Steen violated his 8th amendment rights by denying him Muracel 1% and so construed be denied. Defendan t Steen's 04/21/10 renewed motion for summary judgment also continued in 114 be stricken. Plaintiff's 05/13/10 motion for 30 or 60 day extension of time 116 be denied as moot. Plaintiff be directed to file and serve his pretrial state ment and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial within 30 days of any order adopting this recommendation. Defendants be directed to file their pretrial statement not later than 30 days after the filing of plaintiff's statement. Motions 114 and 116 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
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
| Search for this case: Williams v. Sandham et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
