Shields v. Foston et al
| Remon Shields |
| D. Foston, P. Miller, James Walker, J. E. Mayfield and A. Taylor |
| 2:2011cv00015 |
| January 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| John A. Mendez |
| 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
41
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/09/13 recommending that defendants' 09/12/12 and 10/11/12 motions to dismiss 27 and 31 be granted. Because amendment can not salvage plaintiff's claims, it is further recommended that plaintiff's 11/19/12 motion to amend 35 be denied. Motions 27 , 31 , 35 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/19/2012 ORDERING that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/26/12 TERMINATING 20 , 21 , and 22 Motion. Plaintiff is GRANTED a final extension of time to serve defendants. Failure to accomplish service within 60 days from the date of this order will may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to follow court orders, for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/29/11 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court shall send to plaintiff a completed summons, a copy of the endorsed complaint, the Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdicti on, a form for Consent/Decline to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, a copy of the Local Rules of Court, and a copy of this order. Service of process shall be completed within 120 days. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order concurrently with service of process and file with the Clerk a certificate of such service. On or before 3/19/12, the parties shall file status reports (see order for further details).(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/12/2011 ORDERING that the 8 findings and recommendations filed April 20, 2011, are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 7 January 28, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $350 filing fee within 30 days. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this action.(Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/20/2011 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 7 application to proceed ifp be denied; pltf be directed to pay the $350.00 filing fee w/in 30 days; and pltf be admonished that his failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/11/11 ORDERING that plaintiff has 30 days from the date of service of this order to submit eitherthe filing fee or the IFP application. Clerk is directed to mail to plaintiff a form application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.(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.
