Porter v. Kelso, et al
| Jeremiah Porter |
| J. Clark Kelso, Matthew Lopez, Jeffrey A. Beard, G. Giurbino, S. Hubbard, M. Hoshino, M. Stainer, R. Diaz, M. Ruff, K. Harrington, L. Payton, K. Allison, T. Rothschild and D. Herndon |
| 2:2015cv01183 |
| June 1, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/6/16 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/8/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 16 motion for immediate relief, construed as a motion for an extension of time; and plaintiff has 30 days to file his completed application to proceed ifp. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/11/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, either the $350.00 filing fee plus the $50.00 administrative fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided with this order; Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner for use in a civil rights action.(Dillon, M)
|
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.
