Jackson v. San Joaquin County et al
| Alicia Jackson |
| San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Probation Department, Stephanie James, Carla Contente, Floyd Banks, Tim Hinkley and Stephanie Watt |
| 2:2015cv00065 |
| January 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Carolyn K. Delaney |
| John A. Mendez |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/8/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's request (ECF No. 12) is denied. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/23/15 ORDERING that the 7/8/15 hearing on the 8 Motion to Dismiss is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/15/15: HEARING as to 8 MOTION to DISMISS continued to 7/8/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/14/15. Plaintiff is granted 14 days in which to pay the appropriate fees in the amount of $400 to the Clerk of the Court. (Manzer, C)
|
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.
