Martin v. Masuret et al
| Steven A. Martin |
| A. Masuret, E. Sanchez, T. Woods, James Walker, J Lizarraga, J Platt, K.M. Pool, R. Pimentel, D. Baugham, Matthew Cate, N. Grannis, A Nergenah, Arnold Schwarzenegger, County of Sacramento and California State Prison Sacramento |
| 2:2010cv00189 |
| January 25, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| William B. Shubb |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
112
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/23/15: This case is dismissed with prejudice.(Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
110
STIPULATION and ORDER 109 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/14/2015: The deadline for filing the dispositional documents or a status report is continued to 12/14/2015. The Status Conference is reset for 1/4/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Kirksey Smith, K)
|
|
Filing
108
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/15/2015 ORDERING Dispositive Motions or a Status Report filed by 9/14/2015; Status Conference Reset for 10/13/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
104
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/17/2015 ORDERING that the parties have an additional ninety (90) days to file the request for dismissal in this matter or a further Joint Status Report will be due on 6/15/2015. The Status Conference is continued to 7/6/2015 at 2:00 p.m. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/10/14 ordering the custodian to produce Steven A. Martin via video conferencing on September 17, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 27 before Magistra te Judge Dale A. Drozd. Custodian is ordered to notify the court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the custodian. (cc: I.T. Dept, Sacramento)(3 certified copies sent to the Warden at Centinela State Prison)(Courtesty copy sent by fax to the litigation coordinator at Centinela State Prison (760)337-7650) (Plummer, M) Modified on 9/10/2014 (Plummer, M).
|
|
Filing
93
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/29/2014 ORDERING 92 that plaintiff's pre-trial statement shall be filed on or before 8/19/2014; and defendant's pretrial statement by 8/26/2014; Pretrial Conference Reset for 9/2/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/15/2014 APPOINTING attorneys Christopher A. Nedeau and Veronica LaShawn Harris for Steven A. Martin. (cc: ADR) (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER AND WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/24/2013 ORDERING the Warden of Centinela State Prison to produce plaintiff Steven Martin via video conferencing at 10:00 a.m. on 12/19/2013 in Courtroom # 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Custodian is ordered to noify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian. (cc: IT Dept)(Waggoner, D)(Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/17/2013 ORDERING. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersi gned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the courts mediation program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided w ith this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the courts mediation program; and Clerk is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences.(Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/12/13 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 8/21/13, are adopted in full; Defendant Hamad's 8/16/12 motion for summary judgment 47 is denied; and this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/21/13 vacating 71 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Hamad's 08/16/12 motion for summary judgment 47 be denied; and this matter be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 47 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
71
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/13/2013 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b). Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/22/13 ORDERING that the plaintiff is granted until 3/1/13 to place his opposition to the 47 Motion for Summary Judgment in the mail; Defendant D. Hamad's reply in support of motion due no later than 3/15/13. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/25/13 ORDERING that plaintiffs October 3, 2012 motion for reconsideration 51 is DENIED; Plaintiffs October 26, 2012 motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 55 is DENIED ; Plaintiffs November 1, 2012 motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) 57 is deemed timely filed; Defendants November 2, 2012 application for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs Rule 56(d) motion 59 is GRANTED ; Plaintiffs November 1, 2012 motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) 57 is DENIED; Plaintiff is granted one final period of twenty-one days in which to file and serve an opposition, if any he has, to defendant Hamads August 1 6, 2012 motion for summary judgment. A failure to file an opposition within the time provided may be deemed a statement of plaintiffs non-opposition and result in a recommendation that defendants motion for summary judgment be granted; and Defendant Hamads reply, if any, shall be filed and served not later than seven days thereafter. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/14/12 denying 33 Motion for Summary Judgment to its renewal within 28 days from the date of this order. Should defendant choose to renew the motion for summary judgment, defendant shall serve on plaintiff all documents filed as part of the renewed motion or relied on to support the motion. Plaintiff's opposition to any renewed motion shall be filed and served not later than 28 days after service of the renewed motion. Defendant's reply brief, if any, shall be filed and served not later than 14 days after service of plaintiff's opposition. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 5/3/2012. Upon reconsideration, Magistrate Judge's Drozd's 40 Order denying Motion to Postpone consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment is AFFIRMED. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/12 ORDERING that 35 Motion to postpone consideration of defendants motion for summary judgment and for additional discovery is DENIED; Within 21 days from the date of this order plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition, if any he has, to defendant Hamads September 9, 2011 motion for summary judgment; and defendant Hamads reply, if any, shall be filed and served not later than seven days thereafter. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/19/2011 ORDERING that this 36 court's order is VACATED; dfts to file and serve a response to pltf's Rule 56(d) request w/in 21 days; and pltf's reply, if any due no later than 10 days thereafter. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/18/11 ORDERING plaintiff to file an opposition within 30 days to 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/03/11 ordering defendant Hamad hereby substitutes the following counsel in place and instead of the law firm of Manning, Marder, Kass, Ellrod & Ramirez LLP, Kathleen J. Williams, Williams and Associates, 1250 Sutterville Road, Suite 290, Sacramento, CA 95822. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/2/2010. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Steven A. Martin signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/19/10. CDC is to collect payments from plaintiff's account and forward to the clerk until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. Clerk to serve this order and a copy of plaintiff's IFP on the Director of CDC. Clerk to also serve Financial with a copy of this order. (cc: CDC Director and Financial)(Plummer, 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
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.
