Daniel v. Padilla et al
| Melvin De Van Daniel |
| Barry Oaks, Robert Molthen, B Padilla, Dennis Smallie and Allicia Garcia |
| 2:2008cv00682 |
| April 2, 2008 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| San Joaquin |
| John F. Moulds |
| William B. Shubb |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
84
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/15/2010 ORDERING Status Conference set for 1/6/2011 at 11:00 AM in 8th floor courtroom (JFM) before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties, no later than 7 days before the Status Conference, a status report apprising the court of the status of this case. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel. The parties are advised that all documents filed with the court must bear the complete number assigned to this action, No. CIV 2:08-cv-0682-JFM (PS).(Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/3/2010, ORDERING that pltf's 70 Request for a Motion Hearing is DENIED w/out prejudice. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/01/09 ORDERING that plf's 63 Motion for Extension is GRANTED; Discovery shall be completed by 01/04/10. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/06/09 ORDERING that plf's 62 Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED; Clerk to send plf complaint packet. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/29/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 10/20/09 motion for leave to amend 60 is DENIED withoutprejudice; Plaintiff's 10/9/09 motion for extension of the discovery deadline 58 is DENIED witho ut prejudice; Plaintiff's 10/14/09 motion for "discovery scheduling" 59 is DENIED; and Defendants shall show cause, within 20 days, why the court should not provide plaintiff with a copy of the police report filed on 9/17/09.(Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 09/01/09 ORDERING that plf's 06/24/09 49 , 50 filiings will be retained in the file. Plaintiff is admonished to refrain from calling the court clerk to inquire about the status of his action. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Judge John F. Moulds on 4/16/09 ORDERING that Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26((a)(1) shall be made within thirty days from the date of this order. Discovery, including the hearing of discovery motions, sha ll be completed by November 19, 2009. Dispositive motions, other than discovery motions, shall be noticed to be heard by February 25, 2010. Plaintiff shall designate expert witnesses on or before April 1, 2010. Defendants shall designate expert wit nesses on or before May 1, 2010. Expert discovery, including the hearing of any expert discovery motions, shall be completed by July 8, 2010. Pretrial Conference set for 9/7/2010 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Bench Trial set for 11/16/2010 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
29
RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 01/21/09 ORDERING that Cases 2:08-cv-2920 MCE GGH PS and 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS are RELATED.(Benson, A.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
