Hollis v. Brackett et al
| Marvin Glenn Hollis |
| G Brackett and G - Griffith |
| 2:2008cv01091 |
| May 19, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Lassen |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
128
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/11/18 ADOPTING 127 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 124 Motion for Relief from Judgment and Motion for Sanctions. (Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
127
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/6/18 RECOMMENDING that 124 Motion for relief from judgment and for sanctions be Denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objection due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 12/2/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's 111 Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
101
STIPULATION TO BE READ TO JURY regarding testimony of witness, Darrell Cathren. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER VACATING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 09/23/11 ORDERING the court hereby vacates the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum that it issued on 09/15/11 to secure the testimony of Darrell Cathren CDCR # F-82301. Mr. Cathren's testimony is no longer necessary at the trial in this matter. (cc: OTCD) (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 9/16/2011 ORDERING that the telephonic Final Pretrial Conference will now be held at 11:00 a.m. on 9/21/2011 before District Judge Richard A. Jones re 93 Order. Court staff will coordinate with the parties and with prison staff regarding participation in the telephonic conference. (Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 8/26/11 ORDERING the Courtgrants in part and denies in part 65 Motion to Compel; Denies 72 Motion in Limine; grants in part and denies in part 76 Motion in Limine; grants 75 Motion to Bifurca te; denies 77 Motion for Law library access; and denies 71 Motion for Extension of time as moot. The court directs the parties to continue preparing for trial in accordance with the court's May 25, 2011 scheduling order. The court extends the deadlines for trial briefs and the initial exchange of jury instructions until September 9, 2011. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 8/22/11. The Court advises the parties that its ruling on their Motions in Limine and other pending Pretrial Motions will be issued no later than 8/26/11. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 03/22/11 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING 49 Motion for Extension of Time; DENYING 54 Motion to Strike; DENYING 61 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The court directs the clerk to dismiss Officer D. Griffith as a Defendant. The court will hold a telephonic pretrial conference on May 24, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. Court staff will coordinate with the parties and with prison staff regarding participation in the telephonic conference. Mr. Hollis must provide Officer Brackett with his initial pretrial statement no later than April 22, 2011. The parties shall meet and confer no later than May 10 regarding any disputes. Officer Brackett shall be responsible fo r submitting a joint statement no later than May 18, 2011. The court emphasizes that the deadlines set in this order are firm. Any party who fails to meet these deadlines may be subject to sanctions, including the dismissal of claims or defenses. The court will set a trial date during the pretrial conference. (Williams, D)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 8/6/2010. Plaintiff's 45 Motion for access to prison law library is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Court will NOT order that Mr. Hollis be granted physical access to law library but does order library officials to provide him with 3 copies of his Opposition to Summary Judgement Motion. Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED and his Opposition shall be filed no later than 8/27/2010. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 03/01/10 ORDERING that: plf's 25 Motion for Default is DENIED; plf's 31 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED and deems plf's 32 Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint in this action; and plf's 21 Motion for return of legal material is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL AND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 11/10/09: Discovery due by 3/31/2010. Dispositive Motions due by 6/30/2010. The deadline for motions regarding the attendance of witnesses at trial as describ ed in parts I and II of this order, as well as dates for the pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion if no dispositive motions are filed. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER DIRECTING USM signed by District Judge Richard A. Jones on 08/12/09 to serve * Complaint * filed on * 05/19/08,* on * G. Brackett, G - Griffith*; Clerk to send instructions for service, summons and copies of the complaint and this order to the USM; Clerk to serve plf with a copy of the Local Rules (cc: USM-priority). (Benson, A.)
|
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.
