Rider v. Goldy et al
| Christopher Scott Rider |
| M. R. Goldy and E. A. Schwab |
| 2:2009cv02675 |
| September 24, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Lassen |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
42
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/11 ORDERING that defendants 27 motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant is DENIED; Plaintiffs 36 motion for leave to file an opposition is GRANTED nun c pro tunc; and Plaintiffs 37 motion to strike defendants motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant is DENIED.It is RECOMMENDED that 27 MOTION to revoke plaintiff's IFP status be granted; Plaintiff's IFP status be revoked; and this action be dismissed without prejudice, unless plaintiff pays the full statutory filing fee by the deadline for the filing of objections to these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/01/11 ordering the court' s03/10/11 order to show cause is discharged. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 30 is granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order in which to file a response to the 02/11/11 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion asking the court to serve a copy of his motion for an extension of time on defense counsel 31 is granted. The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff's motions 30 and 31 on defense counsel Coleman. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/09/11 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants' motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, revoke plaintiff's IFP status, and dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint or require him to pay a filing fee. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/10 ORDERING that plaintiffs 12 amended complaint is dismissed with 30 days to file a second amended complaint. Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the courts form complaint for a § 1983 action.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/05/10 vacating 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be c ollected in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's complaint 1 is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. The clerk of the court is directed to send plaintiff the court's form for filing a civil rights action. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/11/10 ORDERING that Clerk of the Court is directed to randomlyassign a United States District Judge to this action; RECOMMENDING that 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS be denied and this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, 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.
