Parham v. Steemers et al
| Latasha Parham |
| Philip Steemers, Ed Dadisho, Gaspar -, Jr., - Parker, Michael Jue, Francisco Vera, Jennifer Wilson, Carl Hakenan, O'Bryan Kenney, Barbara James, Terrye Davis, Raymond C Wieser, Jr and Richard A. Bennett |
| 2:2011cv01475 |
| June 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Solano |
| Carolyn K Delaney |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
68
STIPULATION and ORDER 67 signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/23/13 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
64
STIPULATION and ORDER Extending time to Complete VDRP signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/12/2012. Parties to notify the Court by February 25, 2013 whether the VDRP successfully resolved the case. (cc: VDRP)(Owen, K)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 08/15/12 ORDERING that the 08/22/12 Scheduling Conference is VACATED; case REFERRED to VDRP; parties are directed to review the requirements of the Program and shall contact the court's VDRP coordinator within 14 days to initiate the process of selecting a neutral. The parties shall inform the court within 120 days whether the program successfully resolved the case. The court will then set a further status conference if necessary (cc: VDRP). (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/28/2012. Defendants' 53 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in PART. Plaintiff's second cause of action for conspiracy to interfere with rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Steemers ; third cause of action for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Steemers; fourth cause of action for supervisor liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dadisho; fifth cause of action for failure to train under 42 U.S.C. &# 167; 1983 against Dadisho; and plaintiffs other claims for violation of 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment, as well as Separation of Powers Doctrine, contained in these causes of action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Ed Dadisho is DISMISSED f rom this action. Defendant Steemers shall file an Answer to remaining first cause of action within 14 days of Order. Within 28 of Order, parties shall conduct a Discovery Planning Confernece. Status Conference set for 8/22/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (CKD). No later than 7 days prior to conference, parties shall file a Joint Status Report. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/25/2012 ORDERING 53 Defendant's Motion Hearing Reset for 6/27/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. Plaintiff to file an opposition, if any, or statement of non-opposition by 6/13/2012, reply, if any, shall be filed no later than 6/20/2012. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/21/12 and United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney;ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court reassign this case to the Honorable Carolyn K. Delaney, United States Magistrate Judge. All future documents filed in the above captionedcase shall reference the following case number: No. Civ. S-11-1475 CKD. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/19/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall file and serve any amended complaint in accordance with the district judge's order within 28 days of the date of service of this order; Failure to file and serve an amended complaint within that time period willresult in a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).(Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER adopting 45 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL ; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/16/12: Defendants James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett are dismissed from the case with prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/7/2011 ORDERING 43 The clerk's entry of default as to dfts James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett is SET ASIDE; further amendment of the complaint is not all owed until final resolution of the motions to dismiss; Discovery in this matter shall be STAYED pending final resolution of the motions to dismiss; the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and F & R's on Franklin G. Gumpert, Barkett & Gumpert, 3400 Cottage Way #Q, Sacramento, CA RECOMMENDING Dfts Gaspar and Parker's motion to dismiss # 6 be granted without leave to amend and that these dfts be dismissed from the case with prejudice; dfts Wilson, Hakenan, and Kenney's motion to dismiss # 7 be granted without leave to amend and that these dfts be dismissed from the case with prejudice; dfts Jue and Vera's motion to dismiss # 10 be granted without leave to amend and that these dfts be dismissed from the case with preju dice; dfts James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett be dismissed from the case with prejudice; dfts Steemers and Dadisho's motion to dismiss # 8 be granted in part and denied in part; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
|
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.
