Judd v. Secretary of State of California et al
| Keith Russell Judd |
| Secretary of State of California and State of California |
| 2:2011cv01557 |
| June 9, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| John A. Mendez |
| Other 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
9
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/04/11 ORDERING plaintiff's 07/11/11 motion to reopen and stay proceedings 6 is denied. Plaintiff's 08/11/11 further application for waiver of filing fe es 7 is denied. Plaintiff's defective motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed 10/20/11 8 is denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to pay the required filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the court. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/5/2011 ORDERING that Pltf's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. Pltf's 4 Motion to Transfer is DENIED. The Clerk to send Pltf an IFP application. Within 45 days Pltf shall submit IFP with trust account statement. (Zignago, K.)
|
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.
