Zochlinski v. Blum et al
| Howard Alan Zochlinski |
| Richard C Blum, William De La Pena, Russell Gould, Eddie Island, Odessa Johnson, George Kieffer, Sherry L Lansing, Monica Lozano, Hadi Markarechian, George Marcus, Norman Pattiz, Bonnie Reiss, Fred Ruiz, Leslie Tang Schilling, Bruce D. Varner, Paul Wachter, Charlene Zettel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Abel Maldonado, John Perez, Jack O'Connell, Mark Yudof, Ronald Stovitz, Yolanda Nunn Gorman, U.C. Office of the President, President of U.C., Univerity of California, Davis, University of California, Davis Administration, Larry Vanderhoef, Barbara Horwitz, University of California, Davis Office of Graduate Studies, Jeffrey Gibeling, Robert Powell, Pablo Ortiz and Regents of the University of California |
| 2:2011cv03295 |
| December 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John F. Moulds |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
93
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/24/16 ORDERING that the 91 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED (cc: USCA). (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/19/2016 DENYING 88 Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/22/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion to excuse his failure to file an opposition to defendants' pending motion to dismiss and request for an extension of time to file such an oppo sition 76 is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of pro bono counsel 76 is DENIED. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file objections, if any, to the court's 12/8/2015 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of this deadline will be granted. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/8/2015 ORDERING that the 12/17/2015 hearing on defendant's 72 motion to dismiss is VACATED. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and failure to follow the Local Rules and the court's orders. Defendants' 72 motion to dismiss be denied as moot. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate all dates. Motion referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/5/15 ORDERING the hearing on 72 Motion to Dismiss CONTINUED until 12/17/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Plaintiff's Responses due by 12/3/2015, Defendants' Replies due by 12/10/2015. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/22/15 ORDERING that: Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that is complete within itself and that addresses the deficiencies outlined above and in the court's previous orders; Failure to timely file an amended complaint that complies with this order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); Defendants shall file their response to plaintiff's amended complaint within 30 days of the date on which plaintiff's amended complaint is filed. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/12/15 regarding 63 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court DECLINES to adopt the Findings and Recommendations insofar as they recommend dismissing plaintiff's claims based on the Due Process Clause and other contractual rights based on the doctrine of mootness, but ADOPTS them in all other aspects. The case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with this order. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/2/2014 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 61 motion to excuse late filing is GRANTED. Defendants' 62 request that the court strike plaintiff's respon se is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's claims based on the Due Process Clause and other contractual rights be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of mootness. Plaintiff be granted twenty-one days to file an amended complaint only as to his claims based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and related California statute claims, and only to the extent that such claims are not barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/18/2014 DISREGARDING 56 Motion for Extension of Time; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 54 Request for Dismissal; ORDERING the plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within seven days, as to why this action should not be dismissed on mootness grounds; ORDERING that the defendants' reply, if any, be filed fourteen days after service of the response. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/19/13 ORDERING the Clerk of Court to REOPEN this action; that not later than 12/11/13, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed on mootness grounds; no later than 12/27/13, defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's response to the order to show cause; the matter will thereafter stand submitted; and DENYING AS MOOT 43 Motion to Have Stay Maintained in Effect. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/23/12 ORDERING that Defendants 10 motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend within 60 days of the resolution of the state mandamus proceedings to allege claims for damages only under 42 U. S.C. § 1983, for violation of constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment attributable to conduct occurring within the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs 15 motion for remand is DENIED; Plaintiffs 28 motion to stay is GRANTED; Plain tiffs 36 motion for extension of time and 41 motion for reconsideration are DENIED; This action is STAYED pending resolution of the state mandamus action; Defendants are directed to advise the court within thirty days of the resolution of the state mandamus proceedings; and the Clerk of the court is directed to administratively close this action pending defendants notice of completion of the state mandamus proceedings.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 4/24/12 ORDERING the court has determined that the matter shall be submitted upon the record and briefs on file and accordingly, the date for hearing of this matter shall be vacated; Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 3, 2012 hearing isdropped from calendar. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/30/12 ORDERING that the 4/5/12 hearing in this matter is VACATED; and plaintiff's 19 motion to disqualify, motion for sanctions, request for reporter's presence and request for oral argument are DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/9/2012 GRANTING, in part, plaintiff's 15 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss on or before 2/23/2012. Defendants' Reply, if any, shall be filed 7 days thereafter. The 2/16/2012 Motion Hearing is DROPPED from calendar. (Marciel, 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.
