Benyamini v. Terry et al.
Robert Benyamini |
Terry, Stockton and Eos |
2:2015cv02615 |
December 17, 2015 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
San Joaquin |
Edmund F. Brennan |
Troy L. Nunley |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 41 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/12/2018 ADOPTING 40 findings and recommendations in full. Plaintiff's 39 "motion seeking an emerg[e]ncy continuance of said matters until[ ] further notice," construed as a motion to stay is DENIED. (Zignago, K.) |
Filing 40 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/27/17 ORDERING that plaintiff shall have another 60 days from the date of this order to file any objections to the 9/21/17 findings and recommendations. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-serve plaintiff with a copy of the 9/21/17 findings and recommendations 35 . Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's emergency continuance of said matters until further notice, construed as a motion to stay 39 be denied. MOTION 39 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M) |
Filing 36 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/03/17 DENYING 34 Motion for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.) |
Filing 35 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/21/2017 RECOMMENDING 24 Motion to Dismiss be granted, all outstanding motions be denied, and the Clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R) |
Filing 26 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/20/17 ordering that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. (Plummer, M) |
Filing 22 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/13/2017 ORDERING the defendants to file a responsive pleading or motion within thirty (30) days; DEFERRING ruling on the defendants' 14 Motion for an Order Declaraing Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant pending receipt of the defendants' Answer and resolution of any motion under Rule 12 or Rule 56. (Michel, G.) |
Filing 20 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/16/16 ORDERING that within 30 days from the date of this order, defendants shall file a responsive pleading or motion in accordance with Rule 12 (or if appropriate Rule 56). Ruling on defend ants' motion for an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant (ECF No. 14 ) is deferred pending the resolution of any Rule 12 or Rule 56 motion. The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 14 . With any answer, defendants may file a notice of renewal. (Dillon, M) |
Filing 17 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/25/16 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to defendants motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.(Dillon, M) |
Filing 6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/4/16 ORDERING that plaintiff has 30 days from the date of service of this order to submit either the filing fee or the application required by § 1915(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a form application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.(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.