Crayon v. Hill et al
Plaintiff: Charles E. Crayon
Defendant: Rick Hill, Kim Stocker and Juan Wang
Case Number: 2:2013cv00350
Filed: February 21, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Fresno
Presiding Judge: Kendall J. Newman
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
January 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/12/17 ordering on January 9, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 97 This civil rights action was closed on March 4, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Plummer, M)
January 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/21/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 87 motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery, etc.; GRANTING in part plaintiff's 89 motion for the court to consider his third level appeal, as discussed in this order. IT IS RECOMMENDED defendant's 81 summary judgment motion be granted; and plaintiff's 88 summary judgment motion be denied as untimely. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
May 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER denying 79 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/20/15. (Plummer, M)
April 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/28/15 ORDERING that the 76 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. (Benson, A)
April 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER denying 74 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/02/15. (Plummer, M)
February 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/24/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to amend the court records to reflect plaintiff's new address at CSP-Corcoran; DENYING plaintiff's 72 motion for appointment of counsel; and the Clerk shall re-serve plaintiff with documents nos. 69 and 71 at his address at Corcoran. (Yin, K)
January 16, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER denying 70 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/16/15. (Plummer, M)
January 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/5/15 ORDERING that defendants request to modify the scheduling order 68 is granted; the discovery deadline is extended to April 30, 2015, for the purpose of plaintiffs deposition only; the dispositive motion cut-off deadline is extended to June 30, 2015.(Dillon, M)
August 15, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER ADOPTING 55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/13/14 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 38 Motion to Dismiss. All claims against Defendant Stocker are dismissed, and Plaintiff's cover claims against Defendant Hill. (Manzer, C)
May 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/8/2014 DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this action; GRANTING plaintiff's 39 motion to submit proof of exhaustion of administrative re medies; DENYING plaintiff's 40 request that defendants provide proof or admit his heart disease; plaintiff's 53 motion to dismiss is construed as plaintiff's opposition to Stocker's motion to dismiss; defendants' 43 motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to the claims against defendant Hill, as stated in this order; plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days to file a second amended complaint, if plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint, defendant Wa ng will be required to respond to plaintiff's allegations in the first amended complaint within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1); if plaintiff files a second amended complaint, defendants shall not respond to the second amende d complaint until ordered by the court; and RECOMMENDING that defendants' 38 , 43 motions to dismiss be granted as to all claims against defendant Stocker and plaintiff's cover-up claim against Hill; defendants' motion to dismiss be denied as to plaintiff's claims against defendant Wang. Assigned and Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days.(Yin, K)
December 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/09/13 granting 41 Motion for deadline confirmation. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss is due within 30 days of the date of this order. (Plummer, M)
November 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/4/2013 DENYING plaintiff's 28 , 29 motions for witness statements. (Yin, K)
July 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/31/13: The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the copy of the complaint submitted by plaintiff on May 15, 2013. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall submit to the court the four copies of the amended complaint required to effect service.(Kaminski, H)
May 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/14/13 DENYING 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; GRANTING 13 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint.(Dillon, M)
April 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/11/13 ORDERING that 6 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with 30 days to file an amended complaint.(Dillon, M)
March 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/28/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 3 ) is dismissed without prejudice; The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner; and Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided with this order. (Dillon, M)
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: Crayon v. Hill 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: Charles E. Crayon
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: Rick Hill
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: Kim Stocker
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: Juan Wang
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?