Pope v. McDonald et al
| Joseph Pope |
| Terri McDonald, F. Foulk and S. Peery |
| 2:2013cv01896 |
| September 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Lassen |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
47
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/18/16 recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment 38 be granted; and this action be dismissed. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 38 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 30 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER adopting in full 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/7/15. Plaintiff's request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/3/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 30 motion to extend the deadline for the completion of discovery. The scheduling order in this case is amended as follows: the part ies have until 12/15/2015, to conduct discovery. Any motion to compel discovery must be filed no later than 12/15/2015. All pre-trial motions, except motions to compel discovery, are due no later than 3/15/2016. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff� 39;s 30 request for an order requiring CDCR to allow plaintiff to place non-collect phone calls, construed by the court as a motion for preliminary injunction, be denied. Motion for preliminary injunction referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/26/15 denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to compel discovery 26 construed by the court as a motion for additional time in which to serve dis covery requests on the defendant is granted. The court's discovery and scheduling order is amended as follows: The parties have until 07/17/15 in which to serve discovery requests on the adverse party. Responses to discovery requests are due no later than 45 days after service. The parties have until 09/15/15 in which to conduct discovery. Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed no later than 09/15/15. All pre-trial motions, except motions to compel discovery are due no later than 12/15/15. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/14 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court is instructed to mail plaintiff a copy of his original complaint and all attachments thereto. The Clerk is further instructed to mail plaintiff a form for filing an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion for discovery (Doc. No. 10 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Joseph Pope signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/26/2014. CDCR is to collect 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 CDCR. The Clerk shall also serve Financial with a copy of this order. (cc: CDCR, Financial)(Yin, K)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
