Moore v. Fox et al
| Duane Reed Moore, Sr. |
| Robert W Fox, G. Thumser, Nathaniel K. Elam, J. Bick, Edmund Carolan, Darla Horgan, L.D. Zamora, Evelyn MA Teucci and Diane Toche |
| 2:2016cv02641 |
| November 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Solano |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| 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
67
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 3/10/23 GRANTING 63 Defendants' motion for an order staying discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Discovery in this matter is STAYED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/17/23 GRANTING 60 defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Defendants' responsive pleading is due by 2/15/23. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 12/02/2022 GRANTING the 58 Motion for Extension of Time. Response to Complaint due by 01/17/2023. (Spichka, K.)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/18/2022 GRANTING in PART 54 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 6/9/2022 DENYING 41 and 43 Motions to Appoint Counsel. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/11/2022 RELIEVING Attorney Paul Richard Martin; GRANTING 27 Plaintiff's Request to Proceed Pro Se; ORDERING Clerk to redesignate this action as a pro se prisoner civil rights action; STAYING this matter for 60 days to allow Plaintiff to retain replacement counsel; and ORDERING Plaintiff to file a status report within 60 days of the date of this order regarding replacement counsel (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/14/2020 DENYING 20 Motion to remove counsel; DENYING 21 Motion to Continue all proceedings; DENYING 22 , 30 Motions for Relief from Judgment. Any further findings will be summarily stricken without further notice to the parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/25/19 DENYING 16 Motion for reconsideration. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/20/19 DISMISSING this case with prejudice for failure to comply with the applicable rules and orders of this Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/07/18 ORDERING the Clerk of the court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge and to update the docket to reflect the new case number. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. rand omly assigned to this action. The new case number is 2:16-cv-2641 MCE CMK. The clerk of the court shall re-designate this matter as a counseled civil action. The court authorizes service on the following defendants: Fox, Thumser, Elam, Bick, Carol an, Horgan, Zamora, Teucci and Toch. The clerk of the court shall issue a summons in a civil case, the assigned District Judge's new case documents, and as appropriate to the procedures of the assigned District Judge, an order setting this matter for an initial scheduling conference. (Plummer, 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.
