Washington v Brown, et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv01994
Filed: September 6, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: William B. Shubb
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 185 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/03/13 ordering that within 10 days from the date of this order counsel for defendants shall inform the court in writing whether the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties, including the payment to plaintiff, have been satisfied and accomplished. (Plummer, M)
February 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 182 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/14/2013 and agreed between the parties to DISMISS this action with prejudice pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorney's fees. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
November 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 173 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/12/12 ORDERING the custodian to produce Jesse Washington via video conferencing at 12/20/12 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 27 before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. 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. (cc: I.T. Dept, Sacramento)(Plummer, M)
November 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 171 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/06/12 ordering plaintiff's 10/24/12 request is granted. This court's 10/15/12 order 167 is amended at page 2, line 3, to reflect that defendant Mohamed is also a defendant with respect to plaintiff's First Amendment claim of violation of his right to free exercise of religion. (Plummer, M)
October 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 167 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/12/2012 ORDERING that within 21 days, each party is to inform the court in writing as to whether the wish to proceed with the settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd or if they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program; and the Clerk is to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences. (cc: ADR) (Yin, K)
October 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 166 ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/5/2012 ORDERING that the 162 Findings and Recommendations of 8/23/2012, be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED to the extent they are consistent with this Order. Defendants' 147 motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPPA) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED. (Zignago, K.)
August 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/24/12 ordering that plaintiff is granted a period of 30 days from the date of this order in which to file a Rule 60(b) motion in compliance with this order. (Plummer, M)
August 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 162 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/23/12 recommending that defendants' 10/13/11 renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings 147 be granted as to plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for money damages; and plaintiff's RLUIPA claims be dismissed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
February 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 156 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/15/12 denying 153 Motion for a court ordered settlement conference. (Plummer, M)
February 1, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 154 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/31/12 ordering that within 10 days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a response to plaintiff's 01/05/12 motion. (Plummer, M)
November 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 148 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/16/11 ORDERING that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition.(Dillon, M)
August 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 146 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/29/11 ORDERING that defendants' 10/11/10 motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice to its renewal, within forty-five days of this order. Should defendants choose to renew their motion, in addition to any other matters that may be relevant to the renewed motion they shall address the two questions set forth above. (Becknal, R)
January 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 142 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/2011 DENYING 139 request for a court order. (Zignago, K.)
December 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 138 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/21/2010. Plaintiff's 11/29/2010 132 Ex Parte Motion for Protective Order is DENIED as MOOT. Defendants' 128 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is SUBMITTED for Findings and Recommendations. (Marciel, M)
December 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/3/2010 ORDERING that w/in 10 days, dfts to file and serve a response to pltf's 11/29/10 filing; and the due date for pltf's response to dfts' 10/11/10 motion for judgment on the pleadings will be set by subsequent court order. (Yin, K)
November 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 130 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/08/10 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. (Plummer, M)
October 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 129 ORDER denying 127 Motion for a mandatory settlement conference signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/10. (Plummer, M)
September 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/10/10 granting 124 Motion for leave to file a dispositive motion with respect to plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. Defendants shall file and serve their dispositive motion within 30 days of the dat e of this order, plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-oppositioin and defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(l). The court's 08/31/10 scheduling order 122 is vacated; the court will reissue a scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements and jury trial following the adjudication of defendants' dispositive motion. (Plummer, M)
August 31, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 122 FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/30/10 ordering plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial on or before 10/15/10. Defendants shall file their pretrial statement on or before 10/29/10. The pretrial conference is set in this case for 11/05/10 before the magistrate judge to be conducted on the file only without appearance by either party. ( Jury Trial set for 1/25/2011 at 09:00 AM in C ourtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb.) Within 30 days of the date of this order, each party shall notify the court in writing whether they wish to proceed with the mandatory settlement conference prior to or following the 11/05/10 pretrial conference scheduled in this case. Moreover, if the parties wish to proceed with a settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return the waiver of disqualification form provided with this order. If however, any party does not wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge and would prefer the mandatory settlement conference be before a randomly-assigned settlement judge, they shall state so in their notice to the court. The clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the waiver of disqualification form with respect to settlement conferences. (Plummer, M)
August 25, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 121 ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/20/10 ORDERING that the 119 findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge filed July 12, 2010,are adopted in substance. Defendants' 99 September 16, 2009 motion for summary judgment is gran ted in part and denied in part as follows: Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's inadequate medical care claim against defendant Kissinger is GRANTED for the reason that the undisputed evidence establishes that defendant Ki ssinger did not work at the prison from October 4 to October 7, 2004, and plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to support his contention that defendant Kissinger "set into motion" the series of events or convinced other prison offic ials to delay and interfere with plaintiff's ability to eat while defendant Kissinger was absent from work. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs free exercise and RLUIPA claims against defendants Brewer and Kissinger is DE NIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to their affirmative defense of qualified immunity is DENIED. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to damages on plaintiffs free exercise and RLUIPA claims against defendant Mohamed is DENIED. (Duong, D)
July 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 119 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/2010 RECOMMENDING that dfts' 99 motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
March 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 118 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/10 DENYING 113 Motion for protective order as moot. (Dillon, M)
November 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 108 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/30/09 ORDERING that 91 Supplemental Motion to Compel is granted in part; Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendants Brewer and Kissinger shall submit further responses to plaintiffs second set of interrogatories.(Dillon, M)
July 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER DIRECTING USM to serve Amended Complaint filed on 7/18/08, on Salem Mohamed signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/14/09. Within 10 days, the USM is directed to notify defendant Mohamed of the commencement of this action and to request a waiver of service of summons. Clerk shall serve upon plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules of Court. The courts 5/20/09 findings and recommendations are VACATED; Plaintiffs 87 motion to compel is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs 89 motion for a court order effecting service of his amended complaint on defendant Mohamed is GRANTED. (cc USM) (Dillon, M)
January 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/20/09 ORDERING that plaintiffs 54 motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED; Service of the complaint is appropriate for defendant Mohamed; The Cler k of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the amended complaint filed 7/18/08 to be completed and returned to the court with the Notice of Submission of documents within 30 days. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants 48 motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Motion referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 15 days.(Dillon, M)
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: Washington v Brown, 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?