Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.
Plaintiff: Nam Ba Nguyen
Defendant: California Prison Health Service, R. L. Andreasen, Nathanial K. Elam, M. Osman and Sherman Champen
Case Number: 2:2013cv00963
Filed: May 15, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
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
April 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 100 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/10/19 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
January 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/9/2019 GRANTING 97 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has 60 days from the date this order is served to file his pretrial statement. (Huang, H)
October 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER Directing Filing of Pretrial Statements signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/17/2018 ORDERING within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file and serve a pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial. Defendants shall file a pretrial statement not later than 30 days after the filing of plaintiff's statement. The Pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 282) will be conducted on the file only, without appearance by either party. The date for jury trial before a district judge will be set in the pretrial order. (Cannarozzi, N)
September 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/28/17 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2017 (ECF No. 65 ), are ADOPTED IN FULL; Defendant Elam's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51 ) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's claims against Elam are DISMISSED with prejudice.(Becknal, R)
September 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/18/2017 DENYING as moot plaintiff's 76 motion to postpone. (Yin, K)
August 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/29/2017 GRANTING 79 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has until 9/23/2017 to file his objections to the 78 Findings and Recommendations. (Donati, J)
July 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 78 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/27/2017 RECOMMENDING defendants' 63 motion for summary judgment be granted. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
April 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/06/17 ordering that, within 21 days of the date of this order,plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. (Plummer, M)
March 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 65 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/9/2017 RECOMMENDING Elam's 51 motion to dismiss be granted; and plaintiff's claims against Elam be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
January 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/10/17 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57 ) is DENIED as moot. (Dillon, M)
September 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/27/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 48 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING Defendant Elam's 32 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. The portion of the magistrate judge's 8/3/2016 findings and recommendations that recommended Plaintiff be granted 30 days to file his amended complaint is NOT ADOPTED AS MOOT. (Jackson, T)
September 15, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/15/16 ORDERING that plaintiff shall have until December 27, 2016 to file any opposition to Defendant Elams Motion to Dismiss (ECF 51 ), and that Rule 230 (l) will continue to apply with respect to the motion.(Dillon, M)
August 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/4/16 ORDERING that 46 Motion for Extension is GRANTED as follows: Plaintiff may conduct discovery until October 21, 2016. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that d ate. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than August 19, 2016. Plaintiff's request for a subpoena form (ECF No. 47 ) is granted to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a blank subpoena form.(Dillon, M)
August 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/2/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 43 motion to appoint co-counsel. IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant Elam's 32 motion to dismiss be granted and that plaintiff be granted an opportunity to amend his claim against defendant Elam within 30 days of any order adopting this recommendation. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
January 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/20/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL the 12/2/2015 Findings and Recommendations 33 . Plaintiff's 25 motion for substitution of parties is DENIED; and defendant Andreasen is DISMISSED from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Yin, K)
December 14, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/10/15 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.(Dillon, M)
December 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 33 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/1/15 RECOMMENDING that plaintiffs Rule 25 motion (ECF No. 25 ) be denied and defendant Andreason be dismissed from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
July 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 7 SCREENING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/2/14 ORDERING that the allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants Osman and Champen. Defendants California Prison Health Service, R.L. Andreason, and Nathanial Elam are dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. If plaintiff wishes to ha ve the United States Marshal serve the complaint on defendants Osman and Champen, he must file a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days from the date of this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a form application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.(Dillon, M)
May 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/17/13 ordering plaintiff has 30 days from the date of service of this order to submit either the filing fee or the application required by section 1915(a). The clerk of the court is directed to mail to plaintiff a form application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Plummer, 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: Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, 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: Nam Ba Nguyen
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: California Prison Health Service
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: R. L. Andreasen
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: Nathanial K. Elam
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: M. Osman
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: Sherman Champen
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?