Tufono v. California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison et al
| Arvello L. Tufono |
| California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison, M. Martel, G R Wilson, Lamb, Myrath, D. Arnold and L. Olivas |
| 2:2009cv03372 |
| December 4, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Amador |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| 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
38
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/19/2010 re motion procedures and rules; and ORDERING the clerk to to send pltf a copy of the LR. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER denying 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/16/09. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/14/09 ORDERING that the dfts must file their response to the cmplt in this court w/in 28 days.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte Granting 22 Motion to Transfer to the Eastern District of California. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009) [Transferred from cand on 12/4/2009.]
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte Granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) [Transferred from cand on 12/4/2009.]
|
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.
