Cottrell v. Cook et al
| Michael M Cottrell |
| J Cook, R Plainer and A Audette |
| 2:2007cv02574 |
| December 3, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
71
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/12/11 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/24/11 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/2/11 GRANTING 67 Motion to Compel; plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to respond to defendants 7/14/10 requests for production and interrogatories;Defendants requests are granted as follows: Defendant shall have 30 days from the earlier of service of plaintiffs discovery responses or the deadline provided herein for plaintiff to serve those responses to take plaintiffs deposition and file any further motions to compel; and the parties shall have until 4/18/11 to file and serve dispositive motions.. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 08/25/10 ADOPTING in full 60 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 59 Motion for Entry of Default. (Williams, D)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/11/10 ordering defendants' request to take plaintiff's deposition by video conference 64 is granted. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
60
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/2/10 RECOMMENDING that 59 MOTION, construed as a motion for default judgment, be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/22/09 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/17/09 53 are ADOPTED in full; The 1/07/09 MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies with respect to his claims against Plainer, Cook and Wong 42 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Plainer, Cook and Wong are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Huston in his official capacity are DISMISSED; and, Defendant Huston is directed to file an answer to the complaint within 30 days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
53
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 09/17/09 recommending that the 11/07/08 motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies with respect to his claims aga inst Plainer, Cook and Wong be granted; Plaintiff's claims against Plainer, Cook and Wong be dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff's claims against Huston in his official capacity be dismissed; and Defendant Huston be directed to file an answer to the complaint within 30 days after any order adopting this recommendation. Amended complaint 19 and MOTION to DISMISS 42 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 15 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
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.
