Douglas v. City of Sacramento et al.
| Raymond M. Douglas |
| City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department and Rath |
| 2:2016cv00375 |
| February 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Allison Claire |
| Morrison C. England |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/9/2016 ORDERING Joint Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 3/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; the parties are cautioned that fail ure to timely file status reports or to otherwise comply with the scheduling conference order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation for dismissal or judgment; the Third Amended Complaint 19 is ORDERED STRICKEN from the docket.(Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/1/2016 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the form "Consent toProceed Before U.S. Magistrate Judge" to counsel for each defendant upon receipt of each defendant's Response to the Complaint, or upon the defendant if he is not represented by counsel, and plaintiff shall file with the court a certificate of such service; A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for 12/14/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom No. 26, before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; not later than 14 days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file a status report; The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff copies (one for each defendant plus one for the plaintiff) of the form, "Consent to Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate Judge," with this order. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/13/2016 ORDERING that the 10/19/2016 scheduling conference in 16-cv-0415 is VACATED. Both cases are hereby SET for a joint Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference on 11/16/2016 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The instructions set forth in the scheduling conference order in 16-cv-0415, ECF No. 8, apply to the upcoming scheduling conference. The parties are cautioned that failure to timely file status reports or to otherwise comply with the above-referenced scheduling conference order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation for dismissal or judgment. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/27/16. The parties shall show cause, in writing, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, why these cases should not be consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/15/16 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 6/10/16 14 are ADOPTED IN FULL; All Section 1983 claims against Defendants City of Sacramento and Sacramento olice Department are DISMISSED with prejudice, and all state claims against hose defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice to their renewal in an appropriate state forum; Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Police Officer Rath, Badge # 610. Plainti ff is directed to supply the USM, within 30 days from the date this order is electronically filed, with all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process (listed below). Within 10 days of having supplied this information, Paintiff shall file statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the USM.(see attachment). The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the USM, 501 I Street, Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/9/16 RECOMMENDING that all Section 1983 claims against defendants City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police Department should be DISMISSED with prejudice, and all state claims against those defendants should be dismissed without prejudice to their renewal in an appropriate state forum. Service is appropriate for defendant: Police Officer Rath, Badge # 610. Accordingly, if the district judge adopts these recommendations, t he following service instructions should be issued to effect service upon that defendant. Matter referred to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/30/16 granting plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff may proceed now to serve Officer Rath. Alternatively, he may delay serving Officer Rath, and attemptto state a cognizable cl aim against the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Police Department. If plaintiff elects to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against the municipal defendants, he has 30 days so to do, and he may skip the following service instructions (Nos. 4-10). (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
7
RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/28/16 ORDERING cases 2:16-cv-0375 MCE AC and 2:16-cv-0415 TLN GGH are related. It is therefore ORDERED that Case No. 2:16-cv-0415 is REASSIGNED to Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for all further proceedings. (Jackson, T)
|
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.
