Fryman v. Traquina et al
Plaintiff: Steven Fryman
Defendant: A. Traquina and A. Noriega
Case Number: 2:2007cv02636
Filed: December 7, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Solano
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: Ronald S.W. Lew
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
February 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 75 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/3/2011 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 61 motion for summary judgment be denied; dfts' 69 motion for summary judgment be granted; and this action be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
April 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/20/10 ordering within 21 days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magist rate judge or if they wish to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside over the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. The clerk of the court shall send each party the consent form for settlement conferences. (Plummer, M)
February 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/18/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 46 are ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 35 is DENIED. (Carlos, K)
December 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/23/09 ORDERING that Pltf's 41 Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as unnecessary. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Dft's 35 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Motions referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days. (Engbretson, K.)
December 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/02/09 ordering the court's 03/16/09 scheduling order dates related to pretrial statements (December 4, 2009 and December 18, 2009), pretrial conference (December 28, 2009) and jury trial (April 12, 2010) are vacated. The remainder of the court's scheduling order remains in effect. (Plummer, M)
October 27, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/09 ordering plaintiff has file with the court a notice of substitution of attorney indicating that Jose F. Vergara CSB# 251342, The Smith Firm, 1542 Corporate Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95831 is now representing plaintiff. All parties in this matter are requested to direct all communications with respect to this matter to the above-referenced address of counsel effective immediately. (Plummer, M)
July 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/29/09 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Plummer, M)
January 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/14/09 ORDERING that the 21 findings and recommendations filed October 24, 2008, are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 14 April 16, 2008 motion for summary judgment isDENIED without prejudice. Defendants' 18 June 3, 2008 cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. (Duong, D)
December 12, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/12/07 ORDERING that plt's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. The fee shall be collected and pai d in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. Service of the complaint is appropriate for the following defendants: A. Traquina and A. Noriega. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed December 7, 2007. Plt to submit all necessary documents within 30 days from the date of this order. (Duong, D)
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: Fryman v. Traquina et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steven Fryman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: A. Traquina
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: A. Noriega
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?