Springfield v. Singh et al
Plaintiff: Ciron B. Springfield
Defendant: Vismal Singh, E. Arnold and T. Ford
Case Number: 2:2013cv01442
Filed: July 18, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Monterey
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
November 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/27/17 ORDERING plaintiff's objections 78 are untimely and disregarded. Within 10 days, counsel for defendants shall file a certified copy of the receipt reflecting payment of the settlement proceeds herein, and, if there is a discrepancy as to the date the funds were credited, shall also address such discrepancy. (Plummer, M)
August 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/30/17 denying 54 Motion to re-open this case. Counsel for defendants shall notify the court when the settlement proceeds have been posted to plaintiffs inmate trust account. (Plummer, M)
June 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/14/17 ordering that within fourteen days from the date of this order, defendants shall respond to plaintiffs requests 49 , 50 and inform the court of the status of the payment of the settlement proceeds.(Plummer, M)
January 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/16 ordering this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a). CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
November 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/2015 ORDERING that dispositional documents shall be filed no later than 60 days from the date of this order.(Yin, K)
August 3, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/3/2015 SETTING this case for a settlement conference on 10/22/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (CMK) before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. (cc: ADR, CMK) (Yin, K)
May 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/28/15 DENYING 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
May 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/27/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 32 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs extended motion to compel (ECF No. 34 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to modify the scheduling order (EC F No. 35 ) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows: a. Plaintiffs motion to extend the discovery deadline is denied; b. The motion to extend the pretrial motions deadline is granted; and Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before August 17, 2015. In all other respects the initial discovery and scheduling order remains in effect.(Dillon, M)
February 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 28 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/11/15 ORDERING that Defendants' request 27 is granted; The parties may conduct discovery until March 6, 2015. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before June 1, 2015.(Dillon, M)
June 26, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/26/14 ORDERING that within 30 days, plaintiff shall submit to the court 3 copies of the amended complaint required to effect service. Failure to return the copies within the specified time period will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Meuleman, A)
August 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Ciron B. Springfield signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/26/2013. CDCR is to collect an initial partial filing fee and thereafter the balance in monthly payments and forwa rd 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 CDCR. The Clerk shall also serve Financial with a copy of this order. (cc: CDCR, 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: Springfield v. Singh 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: Ciron B. Springfield
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: Vismal Singh
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: E. Arnold
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: T. Ford
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?