McGee v. State of California et al
| Jefferson A. McGee |
| State of California, County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, Sacramento Elite Security, Bridgeport Homeowners Association, Associa of Northern California, Sean Swarthout and Gary Swarthout, Jr. |
| 2:2016cv01796 |
| July 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| John A. Mendez |
| 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
59
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/28/2018 RECOMMENDING that 41 Motion to Dismiss be granted and the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and that the 52 Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as moot. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Hunt, G)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/2017: ADOPTING 40 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 13 , 22 Motion to Dismiss as to The County of Sacramento and State of California; DENYING 15 Motion for Default Judgment. (Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/2/17 ORDERING that the court's order to show cause 28 is discharged and no sanctions are imposed. Within 30 days from the date of this order, defendant C ity of Sacramento shall file a responsive pleading or motion. Ruling on the motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant 9 is deferred pending the resolution of any Rule 12 or Rule 56 motion by the City. The Clerk shall terminate 9 . With any answer, the City may file a notice of renewal. RECOMMENDING that the County of Sacramento and State of California's Motions to Dismiss 13 , 22 be granted and all claims against these defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 15 be denied. F&R referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/6/16, ORDERING that the hearing on the County of Sacramento and State of California's motions to dismiss 13 , 22 , is CONTINUED to 11/22/16 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. The hearing on defendant City of Sacramento's motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant 9 , is CONTINUED to 11/22/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, n o later than 11/2/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 11/2/2016. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 11/9/2016. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER adopting 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/31/16. Plaintiff's 5 motion for injunctive relief is denied. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/10/2016 RECOMMENDING that the 5 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied; REFERRING this matter to Judge John A. Mendez; ORDERING that any objections be filed and served within fourteen days. (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.
