Cooley v. City of Vallejo
Plaintiff: Frederick Marceles Cooley
Defendant: City of Vallejo
Case Number: 2:2014cv00240
Filed: January 27, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Solano
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/30/16 DENYING 64 Motion to Amend the Complaint. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CASE CLOSED. (Jackson, T)
November 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying 71 Motion for substitution and 74 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/23/15: A 60-day extension of time is granted. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on Jenifer Johnson. (Kaminski, H)
May 18, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/15/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's 64 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is dropped from the court's 5/22/15 calendar without prejudice to the hearing being re-noticed in the event a motion for substitution is timely filed by plaintiff's successor or representative. (Kastilahn, A)
April 6, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER denying 60 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/6/15. (Kastilahn, A)
February 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/15 ORDERING that Defendants January 5, 2015 motion for reconsideration 45 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as stated on the record at the February 20, 2015 hearing; On or before April 17 , 2015, defendants shall produce to plaintiff all responsive documents for the prior seven years, as ordered in the courts November 14, 2014 order, and an additional three years of limited responsive documents consisting of any complaints of excessiveforce and the official resolution of those complaints; Within seven days of the date of this order each party shall file a proposed amended schedule for the remainder of this action.(Dillon, M)
January 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/27/2015 DENYING 48 Request to Seal Documents; ORDERING the defendant to file the document labeled "FLATER 001-003" with this court and to serve it on the plaintiff forthwith if is to be considered in connection with the pending 45 Motion for Reconsideration; CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 45 Motion for Reconsideration to 2/20/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd; DIRECTING the plaintiff to file any opposition by 2/6/2015; DIRECTING the defendant to file any reply by 2/13/2015. (Michel, G.)
November 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/14/2014 ORDERING 37 Plaintiff's motion to compel 29 and motion regarding the terms of a protective order 31 are GRANTED as stated on the record at the 11/14/2014 hearing; within 30 days, defendants shall produce to plaintiff responsive documents for the prior ten years or submit some, or all, of those documents to the court for in camera review if necessary; defendants shall also file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve a copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on plaintiff; and plaintiff shall file objections to the proposed stipulated protective order, if any, within 14 days of the date plaintiff is served with a copy of the proposed stipulated protective order. 31 (Reader, L)
October 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/14 ORDERING that 24 Request filed by Frederick Marceles Cooley is DENIED. (Meuleman, A)
September 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 23 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/8/14 ORDERING that Discovery is to be completed by 4/24/2015; Plaintiff's Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 2/27/2015; Defendants' Designation of Exper t Witnesses due by 3/13/2015; Plaintiff's Expert Witness Rebuttal 3/20/2015; Last day for Law and Motion to be heard 6/12/2015; Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/7/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd; Jury Trial (not to exceed five days) set for 10/5/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Kastilahn, A)
September 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/3/2014 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court reassign this case to the Honorable Dale A. Drozd. The parties shall take note that all documents hereafter filed with the Clerk of the Court shall bear case number 2:14-CV-00240 DAD PS. All currently scheduled dates presently set before Judge England are hereby VACATED. (Reader, L)
July 29, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/29/14: A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for 8/29/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before August 15, 2014, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before August 22, 2014. (Kaminski, H)
April 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/2014 GRANTING 6 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING the plaintiff's request that Frederick Marc Cooley be allowed to continue to provide legal assistance during the course of this litigati on and that the court order service of the 1 Complaint; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to issue process and to send the plaintiff an instruction sheet for service of process by the U.S. Marshal, three USM-285 forms, one summons form and an endorsed c opy of the 5 First Amended Complaint; ORDERING the plaintiff to submit to the U.S. Marshal in person or by mail within thirty (30) days, properly completed USM-285 forms, a properly completed summons form and the number of copies of the 5 First A mended Complaint required by the U.S. Marshal; ORDERING the plaintiff to file a declaration stating the date which the required documents were submitted to the U.S. Marshal within ten (10) days of said submission; DIRECTING the U.S. Marshal to serve process on the defendants without prepayment of costs within thirty (30) days of reception of the necessary materials from the plaintiff. (cc: U.S. Marshal) (Michel, G)
April 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/2/2014 GRANTING 3 Motion to Proceed IFP; DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days, that cures all defects noted in this order and complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice. (Michel, G)
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: Cooley v. City of Vallejo
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Frederick Marceles Cooley
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: City of Vallejo
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?