Floyd v. Grannis
Plaintiff: Andre Rene Floyd
Defendant: N. Grannis
Case Number: 2:2008cv02346
Filed: October 3, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Prisoner: Civil Rights Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: William B. Shubb
Presiding Judge: Kimberly J. Mueller
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 29, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 97 ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 3/28/2012 ORDERING 85 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED in full; defendant Hasadri's 69 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and defendant Hasadri is DISMISSED from this action. (Waggoner, D)
February 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER ADOPTING 90 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 2/15/12. This action is dismissed with prejudice as against dft Mikelatos. (Manzer, C)
December 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/30/11 denying 87 Motion for Extension of time. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Mikelatos be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
December 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 86 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/12/11 ORDERING the 03/15/11 sur-reply filed by plaintiff concerning defendant Cantwell, Dang and Sogge's motion for summary judgment is stricken. Plainti ff's request for leave to conduct discovery as to his claim against defendant Dang is denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Cantwell, Dang and Sogge's 11/05/10 motion for summary judgment be granted; and defendants Cantwell, Dang and Sogge be dismissed. Motion for Summary Judgment 68 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
December 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/2/11 ORDERING that the 81 sur-reply filed by plaintiff concerning defendant Hasadris motion for summary judgment is STRICKEN; it is RECOMMENDED that 69 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted; and Defendant Hasadri be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
September 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2010 ORDERING that pltf's 55 motion to compel is DENIED; pltf's 62 objections to the subpoena for his medical records is GRANTED in part; and the Marshal's 60 request for reimbursement is DENIED. (cc: USM) (Yin, K)
July 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/23/10 ORDERING that within fourteen days from the date of this order defendant Dang shall pay to the United States Marshal the sum of $231.00, unless within that time defendant files a wr itten statement showing good cause for his failure to waive service and the court then relieves Dang of this order to pay. The court does not intend to extend this fourteen day period. Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. (cc USM)(Dillon, M)
July 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/17/10 granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Compel. Granted as to request for production number 12, narrowed to apply to pending individual or class action suits alleging malpr actice or deliberate indifference to medical needs in which Hasadsri is a defendant. Otherwise denied, subject however to the direction to defendant to provide another copy of his discovery responses to plaintiff within 14 days of this order and to promptly facilitate plaintiff's access to his medical file. Defendant Hasadsri's motion for an extension of time 56 is granted; the discovery cutoff is extended by 60 days to 09/17/10. Pretrial motions shall be due on or before 11/05/10. (Plummer, M)
April 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 04/01/10 ordering defendant Hasadsri's motion for an extension of time 46 is granted and he is given an additional 60 days from the date of this order in which to respond to plaintiff 9;s discovery requests. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 47 is granted and he is given an additioanl 30 days from the date of this order in which to serve discovery requests and his motion to compel. Plaintiff's motion for a court order 39 is denied without prejudice. The reamining dates set in the order of 01/06/10 37 are vacated and the new date for dispositive motions as to Hasadsri and Soggie is established below: and defendant Cantwell's motion for an amended scheduling order 49 is granted and the following schedule is issued: The parties may conduct discovery until 07/19/10. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 09/13/10. (Plummer, M)
January 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/06/10 granting 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is granted an additional 30 days from the date of this order to serve his discovery requests on defendants; responses to written disc overy requests shall be due 45 days after the requests are served. The date for filing any motion to compel is extended to 03/01/10; the dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference and trial established in the scheduling order of 08/05/09 are hereby vacated but will be reset, if necessary following the resolution of dispositive motions. (Plummer, M)
December 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER DIRECTING USM signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/2/09 to serve process w/in 10 days on dft John R. Cantwell. (cc: USM) (Duong, D) Modified on 12/4/2009 (Yin, K).
July 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/14/09 ordering the clerk of the court is directed to send to plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, instruction sheet and a copy of the 11/17/08 amended complaint to be completed and returned within 60 days. (Plummer, M)
April 7, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/6/2009 ORDERING that the application to proceed IFP is GRANTED; pltf is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 with an initial partial filing fee of $8.36 to be paid in accordance with the concurrent order; the 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; service is appropriate for defts Dang, Hasadri, Cantwell, Mikelatos and Soggie; the clerk shall send pltf five USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed 11/17/08; submission of documents due within 30 days. (Gaydosh, J)
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: Floyd v. Grannis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Andre Rene Floyd
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: N. Grannis
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?