Welchen v. Harris et al.
| Gary Wayne Welchen |
| Kamala Harris and County Sacramento |
| 2:2016cv00185 |
| January 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other 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
110
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 09/01/23 ENJOINING The Sheriff and Attorney General, in its role as supervisor over the Sheriff, from using or enforcing the 2016 Sacramento County pre-arraignment bail schedule at issue, as well as any subsequent pre-arraignment bail schedules in Sacramento County that set specific dollar amounts for bail by reference solely to criminal charges, without allowing defendants to modify an amount by making an individualized determination as to the arrestee's ability to pay, risk of nonappearance, or threat of public safety before trial; DENYING AS MOOT 100 Motion to Certify Class. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
96
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/3/22 ORDERING that the deadline for all parties to submit supplemental briefing is EXTENDED to 12/15/2022. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
91
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 09/30/22 EXTENDING deadline for supplemental briefing to 11/03/22. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/21/22 GRANTING 80 plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties are ORDERED to file supplemental briefing within 14 days of the electronic filing date of this Order as to the nature of injunctive relief necessary in this case. Supplemental briefs shall be limited to no more than 10 pages. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/2/2021 SETTING case deadlines as follows: Deadline to file dispositive Motions: 1/14/2022. Expert discovery cutoff (if necessary): 12/1/2021. Fact Discovery cutoff: 11/1/2021. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/15/19 DENYING 64 Motion to Compel without prejudice to renewal. (Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/24/2018, GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 35 and 36 Motions to Dismiss. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
34
STIPULATION and ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/30/16. Any responsive pleading shall be filed by 12/13/2016. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/10/16 ORDERING that Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Younger doctrine, the Motion is DENIED; Defendan ts' Motion for a More Definite Statement per FRCP 12(e) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's due process claim, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's equal protection claim is GRANTED. Because the operative Complaint is being dismissed, Plaintiffs' pending 3 Motion to Certify Class is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days leave to amend from the entry of this Order to file an amended complaint as to his due process claim. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/4/2016 FINDING that injunctive relief at this juncture of the litigation is not appropriate; DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Michel, G.)
|
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.
