Thomas v. Swarthout et al
Plaintiff: Lloyd M. Thomas
Defendant: G. Swarthout, V. Hue, G. Cheung, Clark J. Kelso, B. Quattlebaum and Winn
Case Number: 2:2012cv02412
Filed: September 21, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Solano
Presiding Judge: John F. Moulds
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 23, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 103 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/22/17 ORDERING that the Court hereby APPROVES the expenditure associated with counsel's travel up to the GSA locality rate, as follows: Mileage: $316.72 (592 miles x $0.53 5 per mile); Food: $48.00; Lodging: $132.43 (base rate $117.00, plus $15.43 taxes) Counsel shall be reimbursed a total of $497.15 for expenses incurred in connection with his travel to confer with his client. (Becknal, R)
September 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 97 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/30/2016 ORDERING a Settlement Conference SET for 2/21/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Jackson, T)
August 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/30/16 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Lloyd Thomas, CDCR # J-40609, to testify before Judge Newman at the U. S. District Court, Courtro om #25, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, on Tuesday, 2/21/17 at 9:00 a.m. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out-to-Court Desk. (cc: OTCD) (Mena-Sanchez, L)
August 15, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/12/2016 ADDING Attorney Michael Erik Vinding for Lloyd Michael Thomas for the limited purpose of assisting said plaintiff with the preparation for and participation in a Settlement Conference; TERMINATING Mr. Vinding's appointment fifteen days after the completion of the settlement conference; AFFORDING counsel the option of discontinuing his representation of the plaintiff or, at his discretion, proceeding as plaintiff's counsel for trial; ORDERING that the Court's Order Appointing Counsel remain in effect and that this case be re-referred to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution and Pro Bono Program Director if counsel does not wish to continue his representation of the plaintiff; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Order upon Michael E. Vinding, Brady & Vinding, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814. (cc: VDRP Sacramento) (Michel, G.)
July 14, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/13/16 ordering the parties to this action shall each, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the order, submit confidential statements as described below. (See order for further details)(cc:ADR Director) (Plummer, M) Modified on 7/14/2016 (Plummer, M).
July 13, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/12/16 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed April 5, 2016 (ECF No. 87 ), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 30 , 69 ) are DENIED as to the damages claims brought against defendants Cheung and Hu in their individual capacities, DENIED as to the claim for prospective injunctive relief brought against defendant Swarthout in his official capacity, and GRANTED in all other respects. (Becknal, R)
April 5, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDER ; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/5/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a response to defendant Austin and Hickersons reply and objections 84 is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc; defendant Austin and Hickerson's motion to strike 86 is DENIED; and the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that summary judgment 30 , 69 ) be denied as to the damages claims brought against defendants Cheung and Hu in their individual capacities, denied as to the claim for prospective injunctive relief brought against defendant Swarthout in his official capacity, and granted in all other respects. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
February 17, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/16/16 DENYING 74 Motion to Compel. (Dillon, M)
September 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/10/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel ECF 59 , 60 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendants shall provide further responses as noted in this order on or before 10/1 3/15. Any further Motions to Compel with regard to those responses must be filed on or before 11/17/15. In light of this order, Plaintiff may file revised oppositions to the 3/7/14 and 8/3/15 Motions for Summary Judgment ECF Nos. 30 , 69 no later than 12/21/2015. Defendants may file their replies by 1/8/2016. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
March 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/4/15 denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)
February 12, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 02/11/15 granting 36 Motion for additional discovery. The parties may conduct discovery until 4/30/15. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 08/03/15. Ruling on the current pending motion for summary judgment 30 is deferred pending the completion of additional discovery provided for in this order. The clerk shall terminate docket entry 30 . Absent any request otherwise, the motion shall stand as submitted as of 08/31/15 so that all summary judgment motions may be resolved together. Plaintiff shall file a revised opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment 30 by 8/24/15. Defendants may reply to the revised opposition by 08/31/15. (Plummer, M)
June 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/18/2013 DENYING plaintiff's 17 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)
May 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/7/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 8 motion for an extension of time is WITHDRAWN; plaintiff's 12 motion for leave to amend is GRANTED; service is appropriate for defendants Swarthout, Hue, Cheung, and Quattlebaum; and plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service, the court will by the concurrent order direct the USM to serve the defendants. (cc: EFB) (Yin, K)
February 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Lloyd M. Thomas signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/6/2013. CDC is to collect an initial partial filing fee and thereafter the balance in monthly payments and forward to the clerk until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. The Clerk is directed to serve this order and copy of plaintiff's IFP on the Director of CDC. The Clerk to also serve Financial with a copy of this order. (cc: CDC, Financial)(Yin, K)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Thomas v. Swarthout et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lloyd M. Thomas
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: G. Swarthout
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: V. Hue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: G. Cheung
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Clark J. Kelso
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: B. Quattlebaum
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Winn
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?