Noonkester v. Tehama County Sheriff, et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv00306
Filed: February 13, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: David F. Levi
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 86 ORDER signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 5/25/2012 ORDERING 85 The court DENIES as beyond its jurisdiction Noonkester's ex parte application requesting the court to order Coalinga State Hospital to release its financial hold on plaintiff's settlement funds and return them to plaintiff. The court expresses its sincere hope that Noonkester and the state can reach an amicable settlement of their dispute over his settlement funds. (Reader, L)
March 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER 83 for DISMISSAL signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 3/8/2012. Court has considered the Settlement Agreement executed by both parties arising out of court-ordered mediation. Good cause appearing, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party to bear its own costs and fees. (Marciel, M)
July 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM, signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 7/28/11. The Director of the Coalinga State Hospital is COMMANDED to produce inmate Riley Noonkester before Mediator Joe Ramsey, by video-conference from C oalinga State Hospital, to the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #2 on October 27, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum on the Lit igation Coordinator at Coalinga State Hospital via fax at (559) 935-4308. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 7/29/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (cc: Sent three certified copies of Order and Writ of HC Ad Testificandum to the Director of Coalinga State Hospital; and faxed a copy of this Order and Writ to the Litigation Coordinator at Coalinga State Hospital via fax at (559) 935-4308.
July 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 7/21/2011. Court is DENYING defendants' 62 Motion for Summary Judgment on Noonkester's claims regarding access to dayroom and exercise yard while cellside; detention cellside when high- security pretrial detainee was held in SHU; delayed medical treatment for DVT and use of restraints during transport between Jail and Courthouse. Court is GRANTING 62 Summary Judgment to defendants on all other claims and to Sheriff Parker in his personal capacity on all claims. Court orders parties to contact Sujean Park with Alternative Dispute Resolution Program to move forward with mediation. (cc: S. Park, ADRP Director) (Marciel, M)
June 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 06/23/11 GRANTING the 74 Motion for a Status Report. Motion for Summary Judgment is under review. (Michel, G)
September 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 08/31/09 ADOPTING 60 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and GRANTING 59 Defendant Transcor America's Motion to Dismiss. (Streeter, J)
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 this case: Noonkester v. Tehama County Sheriff, 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.


Why Is My Information Online?