DuRoss v. California State Prison et al
Plaintiff: Mark Anthony DuRoss
Defendant: California State Prison, Edmund G. Brown and John Chiang
Case Number: 2:2015cv01872
Filed: September 3, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
October 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/5/2017 ORDERING that plaintiff's 32 motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED and his 31 amended complaint is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff is further informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action. (Zignago, K.)
April 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/27/2017 DENYING AS MOOT 18 Motion to Amend; DENYING 20 Motion to Object; DENYING 21 Motion for Oral Argument; and DENYING AS MOOT 22 Motion for IFP. It i s HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the 19 Second Amended Complaint be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Donati, J).
October 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/20/16 Plaintiffs objection to the courts order requiring his payment of the filing fee 12 is overruled. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time 13 and 15 is granted. Within 30 days, plaintiff may file a second amended complaint in accordance with the courts August 18, 2016 order 9 . Plaintiffs motion for relief or new trial 16 is denied. (Plummer, M) Modified on 10/20/2016 (Plummer, M).
August 18, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/18/2016 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 request to proceed IFP. Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent CDCR order. Plaintiff's 4 request for oral argument is DENIED as moot. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days. (Yin, K)
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: DuRoss v. California State Prison et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mark Anthony DuRoss
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: California State Prison
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: Edmund G. Brown
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: John Chiang
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?