Halcomb v. City of Sacramento et al
| Arlie Halcomb |
| City of Sacramento, Jay Brown and Paul Fong |
| 2:2014cv02796 |
| December 1, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Morrison C. England |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
86
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 05/24/17 ORDERING that this matter is DIMISSED with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41 (a)(1), and pursuant to the 84 Joint Motion of the parties. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 37 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/20/16. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/14/16 ORDERING Exhibit C attached to Defendants' Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits in Support of their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50-4), and attached to Defendants' Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits in Support of their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. No. 49-4) is hereby substituted with a partially redacted version of the same exhibit. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/17/2016. Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, pursuant to parties' agreement. In light of agreement, defendants shall produce to plaintiff responsive documents from ti me period September 2012 - August 8, 2014. Pursuant to parties' agreement, defendants shall produce documents to plaintiff promptly, but no more than three weeks from date of this order, and shall communicate with plaintiff's counsel regarding anticipated document production date. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM & ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/22/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 30 Motion to Amend and Supplement First 10 Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than 21 days from date this Order is issued. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/19/15 ORDERING that the 18 Motion to Compel is GRANTED; defendants shall produce to plaintiff the General Orders in question without redaction within 14 days. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/18/15 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 17 Motion to Strike. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED as to the first, second, and third affirmativ e defenses, and DENIED as to the fourth and sixth affirmative defenses in Defendants' Amended Answer. Because the deficiencies noted by the Court can be cured by amendment, Defendants are GRANTED LEAVE to file a Second Amended Answer within 20 days of the electronic filing of this Order. If Defendants fail to file a Second Amended Answer, this case will proceed on the First Amended Answer (ECF No. 14) with the first, second, and third affirmative defenses stricken therefrom. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/10/2015 ORDERING that within seven days of the date of this order the parties shall file simultaneous briefs, not exceeding five pages in length, addressing whether the discovery at issue should be produced only subject to a protective order. (Zignago, 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.
