Flores v. California Highway Patrol et al
| Anthony Flores |
| California Highway Patrol and Sacramento County Sheriff Department |
| 2:2011cv02446 |
| September 15, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| 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
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/24/12 ORDERING that this action is dismissed for plaintiffs failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. CASE CLOSED(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/14/2011 ORDERING that within 30 days, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a notice of change of address. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/20/11 ORDERING the Sheriff of Sacramento County to collect and forward payment from the account of Anthony Flores to the Clerk until the $350 filing fee is paid i n full. Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiffs signed in forma pauperis affidavit on Sheriff of Sacramento County; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial Department of the court.(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.
