Sassman v. Brown et al
Plaintiff: William A. Sassman
Defendant: Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Jeffrey A. Beard
Case Number: 2:2014cv01679
Filed: July 16, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Kendall J. Newman
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
February 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 104 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/2/2016 ORDERING the plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs by 3/11/2016. (Michel, G.)
January 7, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 102 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 01/07/2016 ORDERING that the deadline for plaintiff to submit an application for attorneys' fees and costs is EXTENDED to 02/10/16. (Jackson, T)
December 15, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 100 MEMORANDUM, and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/15/15 ORDERING that Defendants' Motion to Modify Deadlines ECF No. 83 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Judgment ECF No. 88 is DENIED. The deadlines set forth in the conclusion of the Court's 9/9/15, Memorandum and Order ECF No. 77 , are hereby EXTENDED to 4/9/2016.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
December 1, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/30/2015 ORDERING 97 that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs is hereby EXTENDED up to and including 1/11/2016. (Reader, L)
September 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 82 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/25/2015 ORDERING the plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs by 12/4/2015. (Michel, G.)
September 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 77 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/08/15 ORDERING that California's decision to open an alternative custody program to female inmates only and to permit them to apply for release up to two years prior to their earliest possible release date violates the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; defendant's 51 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; plaintiff's 50 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; both 56 60 Motions to Strike are DENIED. Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from applying and/or enforcing the female-only provisions of California Penal Code § 1170.05(a) and (c) in the implementation and administration of the ACP. CDCR shall immediately CEASE denying admission to the ACP on the basis that an applicant is male. Male prisoners shall be accepted into the ACP if they are otherwise eligible under Penal Code section 1170.05 and the implementing regulations. Within 30 calendar days, CDCR shall modify its website and any application forms, regulations, and materials provided to prisoners and the public about the ACP to remove any reference to the requirement that a prisoner must be female to apply or partici pate. This Order shall apply to defendants, their agents, employees, successors in office, and all persons with knowledge of it. No person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to comply with it, nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any sham, indirection, or other artifice. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this injunction. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)
September 1, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 76 RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/31/2015 FINDING that this matter is related to the action denominated 2:15-cv-01722 JAM AC within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a); REASSIGNING the related case to Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for all further proceedings; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to make the appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. (Michel, G.)
November 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 47 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/20/14 ORDERING that all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by 11/28/15. Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 12/31/15. Motions for summary judgment shall be heard on 3/19/15, motion for summary judgment filed by 1/30/15, opposition filed by 2/20/15, and reply filed by 3/5/15. (Kastilahn, A)
October 29, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 44 MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/29/14 ORDERING Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 20 is GRANTED, but with leave to amend. Any amended answer must be filed not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed. (Becknal, R)
October 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 38 MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/14/2014. Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff's 22 Objections and Request to Strike is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' 25 Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in part. Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Shorten Time is GRANTED. Not later than 10/16/2014, government is required to respond to plaintiff& #039;s Request for accelerated Discovery and Summary Judgment schedule. Any Reply must be filed not later than 9:00 a.m. on 10/20/2014. In the meantime, scheduling deadlines are set as follows: A) Discovery i) All discovery, with the exception of Exp ert Discovery, shall be completed by 11/28/2014; ii) All expert discovery shall be completed by 12/31/2014. B) Motions for Summary Judgment i) Any Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed not later than 1/30/2015; ii) Oppositions shall be filed not later than 2/20/2015; iii) Replies shall be filed not later than 3/5/2015; and iv) Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing is set on 3/19/2015 at 2:00 PM. (Marciel, M)
August 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 14 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/20/14 re 2 Notice of Related Case: The Court has determined, that it is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases, the therefore declines to do so. This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of the cases, including any previous Related (or Non-Related) Case Order of this Court. (Meuleman, A)
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: Sassman v. Brown et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
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: Jeffrey A. Beard
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 ]
Plaintiff: William A. Sassman
Represented By: Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld
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?