Smith v. Rodriguez et al
| Earl D. Smith |
| R. Rodriguez, H. Singh and Grant Rogero |
| 2:2013cv02192 |
| October 21, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Kern |
| Allison Claire |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
112
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/27/17 denying 111 Motion for Reconsideration. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/27/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 95 Findings and Recommendations; and Defendants Rodriguez and Singh's 76 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
95
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/30/16 RECOMMENDING that defendant Rodriguez and Singhs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76 ) be granted. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/1/16 ORDERING that within 14 days, the U.S. Marshal shall provide personal service of plaintiff's SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS, along with the attached request for production and a copy of the instant order, upon San Joaquin General Hospital at the following address: San Joaquin General Hospital, Attn: Custodian of Records, 500 W. Hospital Road, French Camp, CA 95231-9693; A copy of this order is to be served on the U.S. Marshals Office, along with plaintiffs subpoena and attached requests for production directed to the Custodian of Records at San Joaquin General Hospital; and non- party San Joaquin General Hospital shall respond to the subpoena within 28 days from the date of service of the subpoena.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/31/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's objections 84 and 87 to defendant Rogero's responses to the court's September 30, 2015 order are overruled; Plain tiff's motion to compel interrogatories from defendant Rodriguez 85 is DENIED; The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a new subpoena form, blank but signed by the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff's request for a subp oena duces tecum as to San Joaquin General Hospital 44 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted to the extent that plaintiff shall be permitted to subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital (1) any extant security video footage of p laintiff shackled to a hospital bed in San Joaquin General Hospital for two or more days beginning on November 8, 2012; and (2) copies of any hospital rules or memoranda that were in effect in November 2012 governing CDCR prisoners being held at San Joaquin General Hospital during a medical stay. Discovery shall be reopened for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff to serve the instant subpoena. Plaintiff's subpoena form must be returned to the court within 30 days. Plaintiff's r equest for a subpoena as to San Joaquin General Hospital is in all other respects DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a subpoena duces tecum as to Mule Creek State Prison 53 is DENIED; and Plaintiff's request for a subpoena duces tecum as to Kern Valley State Prison 57 is DENIED. It is RECOMMENDED that Defendant Rogero's motion for summary judgment 69 be granted. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/8/2015 ORDERING that the 72 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendant Singh's 49 motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a summary judgment motion on alternate grounds, or joinder in defendant Rogero's motion for summary for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/29/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rogero (ECFNo. 43 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rogero (ECF No. 35 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted as to the RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the extent that defendant Rogero is required to file a statement with court within 10 days of the date of this order indicating whether he received t he requested documents by subpoena. If he received the documents, he shall produce them to plaintiff. As to RFP No. 5, the motion is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Rogero to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatories, Set One, ( ECF No. 37 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rodriguez (ECF No. 47 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rodriguez (ECF No. 59 ) is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Rodriguez to provide supplemental responsesto Interrogatories, First Set (ECF No. 60 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED part; and Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of service of this order to respond to defendant Rodriguezs pending motion for summary judgment. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
72
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/24/15 recommending that defendant Singh's motion for summary judgment 49 be denied. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 49 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/5/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36 are ADOPTED in FULL; and the motion to dismiss 20 filed by defendants Rodriguez and Singh is DENIED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/23/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Rogero to answer plaintiffs Interrogatories, Set One, ECF No. 30 -1, is denied as prematurely filed and now moot. Plaintiffs motion to com pel defendant Rogero to provide further answers to plaintiffs Interrogatories, Set One, ECF No. 37 , remains outstanding (as acknowledged by defendant, see ECF No. 38 at 1 n.1); defendant shall, within 14 days after the filing date of this order, fileand serve a response to plaintiffs motion. Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Rogeros further responses to plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for sanctions, ECF No. 34 , is denied. Plaintiffs motion to compel defen dant Rogeros further responses to plaintiffsRequest for Production of Documents, Set Two, ECF No. 35 , is reinstated; defendant shall, within 14 days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a response to plaintiffs motion. Plaintiffs mot ion for appointment of a medical expert, ECF No. 40 , is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall redesignate defendants oppositions filed January 13, 2015, asfollows: ECF No. 38 is responsive to ECF Nos. 30 & 37 (ECF No. 37 remains outstanding); ECF No. 39 is responsive to ECF No. 34 . In addition, the Clerk of Court shall indicate that plaintiffs motion at ECF No. 35 has not yet been resolved.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/22/14 ORDERING defendants' 11/06/14 motion for a stay of discovery, construed as a motion for extension of time 29 is granted. Rodriguez and Singh will have 30 days following the adoption of the findings and recommendations to serve their discovery responses upon plaintiff. The deadlines set for in the DSO 28 filed on 10/15/14 are modified as follows: the discovery deadline is extended for all partie s until 04/17/15. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline is re-set for 09/18/15. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery 30 from defendants Rodriguez and Singh are denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff's motion to compel pr oduction responses to his sets one and two propounded upon defendant Rogero 33 is superseded by plaintiff's motion regarding the same requests at 34 and 35 is hereby vacated from the court's calendar. Defendant Rogero must file any r esponse to the motion to compel interrogatory answers 30 and the motion to compel responses/production to discovery requests propounded upon him by plaintiff 34 within 21 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that the motion to dismiss 20 filed by defendants Rodriguez and Singh be denied. Motion 20 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/13/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request at ECF No. 13 , construed as a request for an extension of time to amend his complaint, is granted; plaintiff has one further opportunity to file an amended complaint but must do so within 30 days; there will be no further extension of time. If plaintiff elects not to amend his complaint, the court will proceed to screen the original complaint.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/9/14 denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/09/14 granting 6 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the court's CDC o rder filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's putative motion for a temporary restraining order 7 is construed as a motion to amend the complaint and as such is granted. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days. If plaintiff elects not to amend his complaint, the court will screen his original complaint. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/29/13 denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff shall submit within 30 days from the date of this order, a completed affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the fo rm provided by the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff a new application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. Plaintiff shall submit within 30 days from the date of this orrder a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the 6 month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. (Plummer, M)
|
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.
