Arnold v. Williams et al
| Corey Lovell Arnold |
| M Williams and High Desert State Prison |
| 2:2008cv02886 |
| December 1, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Kings |
| 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
22
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/23/09 ORDERING that the 21 findings and recommendations filed October 28, 2009, are ADOPTED in full. Defendant's 13 April 30, 2009 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/27/09 ORDERING that Clerk is directed to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; it is RECOMMENDED that 13 Motion to Dismiss be granted. Objections due within 20 days. (Owen, K)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/23/09 ordering plaintiff's 12/01/08 application to proceed IFP 2 is granted. Plaintiff to pay filing fee of $350.00; balance to be paid in accordance w/CDC order. Service is appropriate for defendant Williams. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, 1 summons, instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed 12/01/08 to be completed and returned within 30 days. (Plummer, 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.
