Mitchell v. Snowden et al
| Michael J. Mitchell |
| Snowden, Seaton, Larios, Compton, Engellemer and S. Vance |
| 2:2008cv01658 |
| July 18, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| 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
129
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/08/15 denying as unnecessary 128 Motion to refile this action. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/9/2013 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 114 motion for an extension of time to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED as unnecessary. Plaintiff's 115 motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED. (cc: USCA) (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 104 motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and RECOM MENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(b) due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and his failure to comply with the court's orders. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/18/13 ORDERING that the 10/30/12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98 are VACATED. Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen days from his receipt of this order in which to file his opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
98
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/29/12 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/2012 ORDERING that within 14 days, plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' 81 motion for summary judgment in light of and in keeping with the standards set forth in this order; in the alternative, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed with this matter, he shall file a request to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a). (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/21/12 ordering plaintiff's motion for extension of time to conduct discovery 77 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 77 is denied. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/11 ordering within 30 days of the date of service of this order defense counsel shall file a response to plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery. In any response to plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, defense counsel is directed to inform the court as to the status of plaintiff's legal property. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/20/2011 DENYING, as unnecessary, pltf's 65 motion for an extension of time. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/05/11 ordering plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying him appointment of counsel construed as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel 62 is denied. Pla intiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery 62 is granted. The parties may conduct discovery until 01/06/12. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 03/09/12. Pretrial conferen ce and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of any dispositve motion or the expiration of time for filing such a motion. The remainder of the discovery and scheduling order filed on 05/27/11 remains in effect. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/06/11 granting 60 Motion to modify scheduling order. The court's scheduling order deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions are vacated. The rest of the discovery and scheduling order remains in effect. Defense counsel shall file a status report in this case on the first court day of each month advising the court of the status of plaintiff's housing. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/10/11 denying 58 Motion to Appoint Counsel and for extension of time to conduct discovery. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/11 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 7, 2011, are adopted in full. Defendant Compton's 20 June 1, 2010 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/11 DENYING 48 and 49 Motions for Extension of time as unnecessary; DENYING 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/05/11 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Compton's 06/01/10 motion to dismiss 20 be denied. MOTION to DISMISS 20 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER denying as moot 42 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/10/11. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/24/2011 ORDERING that this action is REFERRED to the Chief Judge for reassignment. Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben and Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for all further proceedings. The case number on all future filed documents shall be 2:08-cv-1658 DAD (PC). (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/27/2010 GRANTING 36 40 Motion for Extension; Plaintiff shall have up to and including 2/21/2011, in which to file his response to defendant Compton's motion to dismiss. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 9/20/10 ORDERING pltf's request for extension of time 31 to file a response to dft Compton's motion to dismiss 20 is GRANTED; pltf shall have up to and including 10/18/10 in which to file his response. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/6/10, ORDERING that 26 dft Vance's motion to be relieved from pymt of costs of service is GRANTED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/14/2010. Service is appropriate for Largos, Snowden, Seaton, Compton, S. Vance. Defendants Engellemer and John/Jane Doe are hereby dismissed. Clerk to send plaintiff: five USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed July 18, 2008. Plt to submit the documents within thirty days from the date of this order. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/2/2009. In response to 8 9 Letters of 3/2/2009 and 3/15/2009, plaintiff is informed that pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1914(a), the total IFP Application filing fee is $350 and he owes full amount. Any such amount should be paid directly to the Clerk with certification made that payment is on plaintiff's behalf and is to be applied to filing fee. (Marciel, 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.
