Rodriguez v. Simmons
| Jose DeJesus Rodriguez |
| Simmons |
| 2:2009cv02195 |
| August 10, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Frank C. Damrell |
| John F. Moulds |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
93
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/11/2011 ORDERING that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk to close this case and vacate all dates. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/1/11 ORDERING Plaintiffs motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 81-83, 86) defendants' responses to Requests No. 1 and 2, propounded by plaintiff on December 28, 2010, is granted with respect to the p ortion of Request No. 2 that seeks "information regarding any application for Workmens' Compensation benefits" and "medical" documents arising from the "'incident' of August 10,2008." Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days from the date this order is signed to both file and serve an updated written response to the "Workmens' Compensation" clause of Request No. Defendants shall have twenty (20) days from the date this order is signed t o provide plaintiff with copies of documents responsive to the "Workmens' Compensation" clause of Request No.2. If defendants cannot provide responsive documents without running afoul of privacy concerns or for other reasons, even wit h redaction or a stipulated protective order, within fourteen (14)days of the date this order is signed, defendants shall file a motion seeking additional time to comply with this Order. As to every other aspect of plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 81-83, 86), the motion is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension of the discovery cutoff (Dkt.No. 80) is denied. No sanctions will be awarded in connection with plaintiff's motions, as plaintiff failed to properly me et and confer prior to filing them and has otherwise failed to properly comply with Eastern District Local Rule 251.5. If, in the future, plaintiff's filings do not comply with the requirements of the Eastern District Local Rules, those filings will be rejected and may result in "entry of an order adverse" to plaintiff, up to and including dismissal of his action with prejudice.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/17/11 ORDERING that plf's 77 Certificate and Notice and 79 Report of Parties' Discovery Conference will be placed in the court file and DISREGARDED; no action will be taken on plf's 74 Declaration or 75 Letter. To the extent the 74 Declaration could be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, it is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/30/2010 ORDERING Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and/or protective order, Dkt. No. 71, is hereby DENIED; and the Clerk is directed to VACATE the December 30, 2010 hearing d ate on this motion; and Plaintiff is cautioned against further filings of requests for injunctive relief based on the same factual and/or legal arguments absent substantially changed circumstances. Any future requests for injunctive relief suffering from the same defects may be summarily disregarded.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/15/2010 DENYING 67 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/4/10: 68 MOTION is denied for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/25/2010. Plaintiff's 65 First Request for Production and Initial Disclosure will be placed in Court file and DISREGARDED. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/16/10: Plaintiff's August 13, 2010 filing seeking to decline the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge is DENIED without prejudice 62 . (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/5/10, ORDERING that pltf's motions for reconsideration 38 , 41 are DENIED. Pltf's requests for judicial notice 40 , 42 are DENIED as moot. Pltf's request for summary judgment 44 is DENIED without prejudice. Pltf's motion for relief from order, default judgment or entry of default 50 is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/10/10 ORDERING dft Anthony Knapp DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/1/10, ORDERING that dft Anthony Knapp is directed, within seven days of the date of this order, to file a document with the court indicating whether he joins in or opposes 47 the request for dismissal without prejudice filed on 5/26/10.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 4/6/2010 ORDERING 36 Findings and Recommendations are adopted; and 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/5/2010 ORDERING 16 that within 30 days from date of this order the court will consider any response defendants may file to plaintiff's request. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 09/01/09 DIRECTING USM to serve process on dfts Officer Simmons and the San Joaquin County Sheriff; Clerk to send instructions for service, summons and copies of complaint and this order to the USM (cc: USM Priority). (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/18/2009 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Clerk shall send plaintiff 1 Summons, 2 USM-285 forms, an instruction sheet, and a copy of 8/10/2009 Complaint. Within 30 days from date of this Order, plaintiff shall complete and return attached Notice of Submission of Documents together with other transmitted documents. Service is appropriate for defendants Officer Simmons and San Joaquin County Sheriff. (Marciel, M)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: Rodriguez v. Simmons | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jose DeJesus Rodriguez | |
| 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: Simmons | |
| 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.
