Barker v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
Plaintiff: |
William Barker |
Defendant: |
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State of California and Mark Green |
Case Number: |
2:2013cv01793 |
Filed: |
August 28, 2013 |
Court: |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Office: |
Sacramento Office |
County: |
Solano |
Presiding Judge: |
Kendall J. Newman |
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 |
August 24, 2016 |
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/24/16 ORDERING that the parties' stipulated request to vacate the August 21, 2016 dispositive motion deadline is GRANTED. The Court will reset the dispositive motion deadline, if necessary, in the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement at the November 9, 2016 mediation.(Dillon, M)
|
July 1, 2016 |
Filing
30
ORDER AND WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/1/2016 ORDERING the custodian to produce William Barker #P-86703, to testify in USDC at 9:00 A.M. on 11/9/2016 in courtroom #25, before Magist rate Judge Kendall J. Newman; custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. (cc: OTCD-SAC) (3 Certified copies served by mail on CHCF Warden)(Yin, K)
|
May 25, 2016 |
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/25/16 ORDERING that the joint stipulation to extend the dispositive motion deadline by ninety days, up to and including August 21, 2016, is GRANTED.(Dillon, M)
|
September 16, 2015 |
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/15/15 adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's claim against defendant Mark Green in his official capacity is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss 19 is otherwise denied. Defendants are directed to file an answer to the remaining claims within twenty days of the date of this order. (Kaminski, H)
|
June 25, 2015 |
Filing
22
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/25/15 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge in this action. It is RECOMMENDED that: Plaintiffs claims under California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.1 et seq., be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Mark Green in his o fficial capacity be dismissed with prejudice. Defendants motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19 ) otherwise be denied. Defendants be directed to file an answer to the remaining claims within twenty days of adoption of the these Findings and Recommendations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
September 30, 2014 |
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/30/14 ORDERING that the parties stipulation to extend the deadline for defendants to respond to plaintiffs amended complaint 15 is granted; and Defendants response is now due on or before November 25, 2014. (Dillon, M)
|
May 16, 2014 |
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/16/14: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit to the court the completed Notice of Amendment and an original and one copy of the Amended Complaint. (Kaminski, H)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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
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?