Moore v. Tesluk et al
| Kevin Eddis Moore |
| G. Tesluk, P. Nguyen, H. Win, M. Fox, P. Gladney, T. Bzoskie and R. Duncan |
| 2:2016cv02268 |
| September 23, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| 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
88
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/7/2022 DENYING plaintiff's 86 motion alleging breach of the settlement agreement. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/08/18 ORDERING that within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants Fox and Win shall file further briefing addressing whether they received a set of requests for admissions from plaintiff. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/22/2018 ORDERING within 14 days of the date of this order, defendant Fox to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER adopting in full 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 2/13/18. Plaintiff's 53 motion for a court order, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/7/2018 DENYING 58 Motion to Limit the Scope of the subpoena issued and the Request for an in camera review of the records sought in the subpoena. (Fabillaran, J)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/31/2018 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 67 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/18/2018 ORDERING Plaintiff to file further briefing in support of his request for an in camera review within 10 days of the date of this order. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
56
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/29/2017 RECOMMENDING that 53 Motion for Court Order, construed as Motion for Injunctive Relief, be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/23/2017 ORDERING, within 7 days, defendant Nguyen shall SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to respond to the 9/29/2017 order. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/28/2017 DENYING 41 Motion to Amend; GRANTING 43 Motion to Opt Out of the Post-Screening ADR Project by defendants Fox and Win and joined 45 by defendant Tesluk; and ORDERING defendant Nguyen to inform the court, within 14 days, whether she is interested in participating in a settlement conference with Plaintiff at this time or whether she wishes to postpone the settlement conference to a later date. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING CASE FOR 120 DAYS. The parties shall file the attached notice re settlement conference within 30 days of this order. The assigned DAG shall contact Courtroom Deputy within 30 days to sch edule a settlement conference. Each party shall submit a confidential settlement conference statement at least 7 days prior to the conference. If settlement is reached, the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement. The Clerk shall serve copies of (a) plaintiff's complaint, (b) the screening order, and (c) the instant order, on Supervising DAG Monica Anderson and attorneys Kathleen Rhoads and Carlos Ambriz. (cc: Monica Anderson) signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/10/17. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/4/2017 ADOPTING in FULL 33 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 18 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's claim pursuant to California Government Code § 845.6. Defendant Tesluk is ORDERED to file a response to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim within twenty days of the date of this order. (Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/13/2017 ORDERING Clerk to appoint a district judge to this action and RECOMMENDING that defendant Tesluk's 18 Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs claim pursuan t to California Government Code § 845.6 be granted and defendant Tesluk be ordered to file a response to plaintiff's 8th Amendment claim within 20 days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations. Appointed and referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting 9 Motion for Extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/2/16. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/13/16 ORDERING the Director of the CDC to collect and forward payment from the trust account of Kevin Moore and forward payment to the court until the balance is paid in full. Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff's signed in forma pauperis affidavit to the Director of the CDC; and the Clerk of the Court is further directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial Department of the court. (cc CDC, Financial)(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.
