Just v. County of Nevada et al
| Gerald L. Just |
| Rodney McClung, Gregory Shaffer, Brian Washko, Nevada County Counsel 's Office, Nevada County Code Compliance Office, Nevada County Building Department, County of Nevada, Shari Parker and Robert Choate |
| 2:2012cv00505 |
| February 27, 2012 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Morrison C. England |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 |
| 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
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/14/2012 GRANTING 28 Response to Motion to Dismiss construed as a Motion to Amend the Complaint; ORDERING Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint by 12/3/2012; DENYING, as moot, 19 Motio n to Dismiss; VACATING the Motion Hearing as to 19 Motion to Dismiss set for 11/21/2012; ORDERING Defendants to file a response to the First Amended Complaint within the time prescribed in the F.R.Cv.P.; CONTINUING the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference to 3/27/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ORDERING the parties to file Status Reports by 3/13/2013. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/24/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff's request to strike defendant's motion to dismiss as untimely, 26 is denied; The 10/3/12 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, 19 is cont inued to 11/21/12 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24; On or before 11/7/12, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion and shall respond to the arguments set forth in the motion to dismiss; Failure of plaintiff to do so may be deemed a stat ement of non-opposition to the motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted and/or that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules; Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 11/14/12. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/25/2012 DEEMING Plaintiff's submission of the service documents to the U.S. Marshal and subsequent 6 Statement as timely filed; DIRECTING the U.S. Marshal to serve process on each defenda nt, with copies of the court's scheduling order, initial service documents, related documents, and a copy of this order within 90 days of receipt of required information from plaintiff; CONTINUING the Status Conference to 10/17/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ORDERING parties to file Status Reports by 10/3/2012; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. (cc: USM Sacramento) (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/5/2012 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Clerk directed send the following: 1 Summons, 10 USM-285 forms, a copy of the 1 Complaint, this Court's Schedulin g Order, forms providing Notice of Magistrate Judge's Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction for all purposes, and Court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. Plaintiff shall provide US Marshal, within 14 days from date of Order, all information needed to effect service of process. Plaintiff shall, within 14 days thereafter, file a Statement with Court that said documents have been submitted to US Marshal Services. [cc: USMS] (Marciel, M)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
