Ekunwe v. County of Sacramento, et al.
| Amir Ekunwe |
| County of Sacramento, Scott R. Jones and David McEntire |
| 2:2014cv02410 |
| October 14, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Placer |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other 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
33
ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/18/17 ORDERING that the January 27, 2017 hearing of defendant's motion is VACATED; and defendant's November 21, 2016 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29 ) is DENIED without prejudice as having been rendered moot. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's October 14, 2014 complaint (ECF No. 1 ) be dismissed without prejudice; and this action be closed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/14/2016 ORDERING that plaintiff SHOW CAUSE in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The 12/23/2016 hearing of defendant's 29 motion is CONTINUED to Friday, 1/27/2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27, before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 1/13/2017, plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendant's motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/8/16 ORDERING that on December 6, 2016, plaintiff filed an inquiry regarding a request for a subpoena. (ECF No. 30 .) Plaintiff is advised to consult the March 8, 2016, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and Local Rule 250.5. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/31/16: 25 Ex Parte Application for an order to modify the pretrial scheduling order is denied without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/3/16 ORDERING that the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 3/2/2016. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than 2/17/16, why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to timely file a status report. Plaintiff shall file a Status Report no later than 2/17/16.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/12/16 ORDERING an Initial Scheduling Conference is set for 2/10/16 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before 1/27/16, and defendant shall file and serve a status report on or before 2/3/16. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/28/2015 ORDERING that within 14 days of the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed for a lack of prosecution. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/20/15 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; DISMISSING claims against defendants Scott Jones and the County of Sacramento with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff, however, is not obliged to amend his complaint. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue process and to send plaintiff an instruction sheet fo r service of process by the U.S. Marshal, one USM-285 form, a summons form, and an endorsed copy of plaintiff's 1 complaint filed October 14, 2014. If plaintiff elects to forgo the filing of an amended complaint and wishes to instead procee d forthwith against defendant McEntire, within 30 days after this order is served, plaintiff shall submit to the U.S. Marshal one properly completed USM-285 forms, one properly completed summons forms, and the number of copies of the endorsed compla int and of this order required by the U.S. Marshal; the required documents shall be submitted directly to the U.S. Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff's election to proceed forthwith a s consent to the dismissal of his defective claims against defendants Scott Jones and the County of Sacramento without prejudice. Within 10 days after submitting the required materials to the U.S. Marshal's Service, plaintiff SHALL FILE with thi s court a declaration stating the date on which he submitted the required documents to the U.S. Marshal. Failure to file the declaration in a timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions. Within 30 days after receiving the nece ssary materials from plaintiff, the U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve process on defendant David McEntire without prepayment of costs. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (cc: USM). (Meuleman, A)
|
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.
