Graves v. Visek
| Peter Graves |
| United States of America, State Department (Civil Rights) Unit and Richard C. Visek |
| 2:2011cv00367 |
| February 9, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| John A. Mendez |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| 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
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/17/11 ORDERING that on 6/23/11 and 8/11/11, plaintiff filed two "motion[s] to appeal to the United States Supreme Court" and a "motion for a response to the previous motion." ; This civil rights action was closed on 5/12/11. Plaintiff's filings do not appear to be ones contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. Therefore, these documents will be placed in the file and disregarded.(Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/16/11 re 22 Referral Notice REVOKING Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status on appeal. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 03/18/11 ORDERING that the 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and RECOMMENDING that the 1 Complaint be dismissed w/o prejudice. Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 14 days; referred to Judge John A. Mendez. (Benson, A.)
|
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.
