Oliver v. Carey et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv00390
Filed: February 24, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Prisoner: Civil Rights Office
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 109 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/29/11 recommending that plaintiff's claims against defendant Thor be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
September 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 108 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/29/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/23/11 104 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants Noriega's and Mahmoud's 1/21/11 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 91 is GRANTED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
September 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 106 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/20/11 GRANTING 105 Motion for Extension. Plaintiff's objections to the F&Rs must be received by the court no later than 9/26/11. (Donati, J)
August 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 104 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/23/11 ORDERING that w/in 30 days of the date of this order and findings and recommendation, plaintiff shall show cause why his claims against defendant Thor should not be dismissed. IT IS RECOMMENDED that 91 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to Noriega and Mahmoud. Findings and Recommendation referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Matson, R)
July 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 103 ORDER denying 102 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/12/11. (Kaminski, H)
April 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/05/11 ordering that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, a statement of non-opposition, or an affidavit or declaration under Rule 56(d). (Plummer, M)
January 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/24/11 ordering plaintiff's 09/08/10 "Substitution of (Decease) Parties Dr. D. Thor M.D." 84 is construed as a request for an extension of the discovery deadline and. so constru ed, is granted and plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of this order to propound discovery on defendants for the limited purpose of ascertaining the identity of the proper party to be substituted for defendant thor under FRCP 25(a). Plaintiff 's 10/01/10 motion to substitute 87 is denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff's 09/08/10 request for production of documents 83 is stricken. Plaintiff's 08/25/10 motion to compel 78 is denied. Plaintiff shall have until 03/24/11 to propound discovery on defendant Mahmoud and to file any related motion to compel.(Plummer, M)
August 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/27/10 ordering plaintiff's 05/18/10 motion to substitute 71 is denied without prejudice to plaintiff bringing a new motion to substitute identifying a proper party to be substituted in p lace of defendant Thor. Defendant Mahmoud' 07/02/10 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order 76 is granted, and the schedule is modified as follows: Defendant Mahmoud shall have up to and including 10/07/10 to propound written disc overy on plaintiff and to file any necessary discovery motions; and all defendants shall have up to and including 01/07/11 to file dispositive motions. Defendant Solomon's 07/09/10 Motion to Compel and Modify Scheduling Order 77 is granted in part as follows, and is otherwise denied: Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide to defendant Solomon supplemental responses to the following discovery requests as provided in this order and in compliance with FRCP 26, 33, 34, 36 and 37 and Eastern District of California Local Rules 33-250.2, 24-250.3 and 36-250.4: Defendant Solomon's Request for admissions, set one, numbers 1-3; Defendant Solomon's Special interrogatories, set one, numbers 4,12,17,19,20 and 23-25; Defendant Solomon's Request for production of documents, set one, numbers 8-11, and number 4 to the extent plaintiff identifies documents in addition to Exhibits A through O in supplementing his response to Defendant Solomon's Speci al Interrogatories, set one, number 4; Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide to defendant Solomon a signed verification that the responses he provided to defendant Solomon's Special Interrogatories, Set one, on 05/18/10 were made under oath; Within 30 days of receipt of plaintiff's supplemental discovery responses ordered herein, defendant Solomon shall file any necessary motion to compel with regard to such supplemental responses. (Plummer, M)
May 25, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER denying 72 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/25/10. (Plummer, M)
December 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 54 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/2/09 RECOMMENDING that 36 MOTION to DISMISS be denied; 30 MOTION to DISMISS be denied; and all defendants be given 30 days to file answers to the complaint. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 20 days.(Dillon, M)
November 5, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/05/09 ordering the court vacates its 11/04/09 order. (Plummer, M)
October 6, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/06/09 ordering the clerk of the court shall mail plaintiff 1 USM-285 form and a copy of the 12/20/06 pleading. Within 60 days from the date this order is served, plaintiff may submit the attached notice of submission of documents with a completed form USM-285 form providing instructions for service of process upon defendant Mahmoud and 2 copies of the pleading provided to the plaintiff. (Plummer, M)
October 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/02/09 granting defendant Noriega's 36 motion for an extension of time. His answer shall be filed simultaneously with that of defendant Thor. (Plummer, M)
September 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/4/09 ORDERING that, w/in 20 days, pltf to file either an opposition to the 36 motion to dismiss or statement of no opposition. Failure to comply will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to dft Solomon.(Yin, K)
April 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/14/09 ordering service is appropriate for defendants Noriega, Mahmoud, Solomon and Thor. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 4 USM-285 forms, 1 summons, instruction sheet and 1 copy of the 12/20/06 amended complaint to be completed and returned within 30 days.(Plummer, M)
January 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 01/20/09 ORDERING that plf's 23 Application to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED as unnecessary. (Benson, A.)
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: Oliver v. Carey 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?