Ingram v. Sacramento City Police Department et al
Plaintiff: Chaderick A. Ingram
Defendant: Sacramento City Police Department and Gary L Dahl
Case Number: 2:2008cv02547
Filed: October 24, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
Nature of Suit: Defendant
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONSsigned by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/11/10: IT IS ORDERED the status conference set for 5/19/10 is VACATED; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed and the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. REFERRED to Lawrence K. Karlton.(Carlos, K)
February 24, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/23/10 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 61 are ADOPTED; pltf's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Carlos, K)
November 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/23/2009 ORDERING Plaintiff's 59 , 60 , request for a "Hearing for Findings and Conclusions and Judgment on Partial Findings, Pursuant to FRCP 52,&qu ot; is DENIED. Plt's 8 application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith all process pursuant to FRCP 4 for the Sacramento Police Dept. The Clerk of Court shall send pltf the aforementioned summons, along with one USM-285 form, a copy of the 10/5/2009 amended complaint, this order, the forms providing notice of the magistrate judge's availability to exercise jurisdiction for all purposes and the court's VDR P, and a copy of this court's Local Rules. Pltf shall supply the Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process on the Sacramento Police Dept, and shall, within 10 da ys thereafter, file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the Marshal. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the USM. Status Conference set for 3/17/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (EFB) before Magist rate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. On or before 3/3/2010, the parties shall file a status report. RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 53 be denied; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due 10 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
October 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/2/09 ORDERING that Pltf's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. (Engbretson, K.)
September 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 09/04/09 ORDERING that plaintiff's numerous filings, Dckt. Nos. 20, 22-23, 25-29, 31, 33-43, 45-46, shall be construed as statments of opposition to defendant� 39;s motion to dismiss; and the Clerk shall remove from the docket any designation or symbol as to these documents that indicates the necessity of further action by the court. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint be granted in part and denied in part and that plaintiff be granted leave to file a second amended complaint which better articulates plaintiff's claims. Objections to F and R's are due within 10 days.(Streeter, J)
January 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/21/2009 ORDERING 6 MOTION to DISMISS is denied as moot; the order to show cause is discharged; the action shall proceed on the amended complaint; and dfts shall have 20 days after the filing date of this order to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint which may include a new motion. (Matson, R)
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: Ingram v. Sacramento City Police Department 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: Chaderick A. Ingram
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: Sacramento City Police Department
Represented By: Marcos Alfonso Kropf
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: Gary L Dahl
Represented By: Marcos Alfonso Kropf
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?