Robison v. Hill et al
| Glen W. Robison |
| R. Hill, Paramvir Sahota and Moon Jeu |
| 2:2010cv02954 |
| November 2, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John F. Moulds |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
104
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/8/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs August 30, 2012 motion for extension of time 81 is GRANTED; Plaintiffs December 5, 2012 opposition to defendants March 23, 2 012 motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed; and it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs May 3, 2012 motion for preliminary injunction 69 be denied; Plaintiffs May 4, 2012 motion for a court-ordered physical examination 70 be denied; P laintiffs October 29, 2012 motion for preliminary injunction 88 be denied; Plaintiffs February 6, 2013 and March 20, 2013 motions to enforce process 96 and 100 be denied; and Defendants March 23, 2012 motion for summary judgment 61 be granted. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/19/13 denying Motions to Appoint Counsel 87 , 97 . (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/9/12: Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed April 2, 2012, is affirmed. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/30/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 55 motion for sanctions is DENIED; defendants' 58 motion for an extension of time is GRANTED; plaintiff's 59 motion for an extension of time i s GRANTED; defendants' 3/23/12 motion for summary judgment is DEEMED TIMELY filed; and plaintiff has 30 days to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment and, as appropriate, a cross-motion; defendant's reply and opposition due no later than 14 days thereafter, and plaintiff's reply in support of any cross-motion due no later than 14 days of an opposition thereto. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/22/2012 ORDERING that within 10 days, defendants shall file and serve a response to plaintiff's 55 motion for sanctions. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 01/13/12 ordering that the objection filed 01/05/12 52 will be disregarded. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/7/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 are ADOPTED in FULL; and pltf's motions # 10 , 34 for injunctive relief are DENIED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/12/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 39 July 18, 2011 motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff's July 25, 2011 reply brief is deemed timely file d. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 10 December 7, 2010 and 34 June 7,2011 motions for injunctive relief be denied; referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER adopting in full 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/12/11. The motion 22 of defendants Grannis, Stocker and Johnson to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants Grannis, Stocker, and Johnson shall answer the Eighth Amendment claim raised in plaintiff's complaint within ten days from the date of this order.
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 6/5/2011 ORDERING that dfts' 22 motion for extension of time to answer the cmplt is GRANTED; dfts have 10 days for the date of any order by the district court resolving dfts' motion to dismiss; and RECOMMENDING that dfts' 22 motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and dfts Grannis, Stocker and Johnson be directed to answer the Eigth Amendment claim w/in 10 days of any order adopting these F&R. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 05/31/11 ordering plaintiff's 11/02/10 motion for a temporary restraining order 1 is superceded by his 12/07/10 motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's 03/25/11 motion 24 is cons trued as a supplement to plaintiff's 12/07/10 motion for preliminary injunction. Within 15 days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a response to plaintiff's 12/07/10 motion for preliminary injunction, including, if any they have, evidence of plaintiff's current treatment regimen for the conditions complained of in the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed and serve not later than 10 days thereafter. (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/1/2011 (Plummer, M). Modified on 6/1/2011 (Plummer, M). Modified on 6/2/2011 (Plummer, M).
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Glen W. Robinson signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/13/2010. CDC is to collect an initial partial filing fee and thereafter the balance and fwd to the clerk until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. Clerk is directed to serve this order and copy of pltf's IFP on the Director of CDC. Clerk to also serve Financial w/ a copy of this order. (cc: CDC, Financial)(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/9/10 DISMISSING 3 Motion to Proceed IFP without prejudice. The Cllerk is directed to send pltf a new IFP form; pltf is directed to submit a completed IFP form and complaint within 30 days; the court intends to consider the TRO request and will consider any response submitted by the AG within 30 days; the clerk is directed to serve a copy of htis order and the TRO request and supporting affidavit on Deputy AG Monica N. Anderson. (Manzer, C)
|
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.
