Rico v. Beard et al
| Jorge Andrade Rico |
| Jeffrey Beard, Michael Stainer, Clark E. Ducart, F. P. Marulli, D Abernathy, C. Parry, J. Cuske, Nelson, Garcia, Escamilla, Scott Kernan, Harrington, Kathleen Allison and Shaver |
| 2:2017cv01402 |
| July 7, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Carolyn K. Delaney |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
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
130
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/4/2021 GRANTING 125 Motion to Lift Stay and Dismiss Case on the grounds of qualified immunity. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/2021 ORDERING 117 This action is STAYED pending resolution of the motion for rehearing en banc in Rico v. Ducart, No. 19-15541. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED this case. Either party may file, as appropriate, a motion to reopen this action, to dismiss this action, or to extend the stay within 21 days of the resolution of motion for rehearing en banc Rico v. Beard, and this action will remain STAYED unless a timely motion is filed in accordance with this order. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
117
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 08/29/19 RECOMMENDING that defendants' motion to stay these proceedings until the 9th circuit renders a decision on defendants' interlocutory appeal 112 be granted. Motion to Stay 112 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/12/2019 ORDERING, within 15 days, plaintiff shall file a response to defendants' 112 motion to stay. Within 10 days of the filing of plaintiff's response, defendants may file a reply. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/4/19 ADOPTING 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to the extent they are consistent with the explanations in this order. Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSE D as moot. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Beard, Kernan, Stainer, Harrington and Allison are DISMISSED based on qualified immunity. The case will proceed on plaintiff's claims for damages against the appeals review defendants (Duc art, Marulli, Abernathy, Cuske and Parry) and the floor officer defendants (Nelson, Garcia, Shaver and Escamilla). The case is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in light of this order and as provided by the Local Rules. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
101
STIPULATED PRETRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 02/25/19. (See order for further details.)(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER on REQUEST for AUTHORITY to INCURE COSTS and REQUEST for PAYMENT signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/17/2018. (cc: Finance) (Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
86
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/1/2018 RECOMMENDING 68 Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as stated in this Findings and Recommendations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/18/2018 ORDERING, within 20 days, defendants shall file a brief on the mootness issue raised in their 77 supplement to their motion to dismiss filed 5/17/2018. Within 15 days of service of defendants' brief, plaintiff shall file a responsive brief. Within 10 days of service of plaintiff's brief, defendants may file a reply. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/29/2018 ORDERING before 4/9/2018, and while plaintiff is still incarcerated in the SHU at PBSP, defendants to make plaintiff available at PBSP for an examination by Dr. Rafael Pelayo, Clinical Pro fessor at the Stanford Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine and by the close of business on 3/30/2018, counsel for both parties to meet and confer to arrange the date, time, and scope of the examination. Counsel for defendants to discuss these details with the PBSP litigation coordinator prior to meeting with counsel for plaintiff. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/9/2018 DIRECTING defendants to file a Notice of Hearing within 21 days of this order re 49 Motion to Dismiss before the undersigned Magistrate Judge if they wish to proceed with the motion. (Fabillaran, J)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/14/17, ORDERING that within 14 days from the date of this order the parties in the above captioned case are directed to file and serve any response they may have to the Notice of Related Cases f iled in this action on 7/11/2017. The Clerk is directed to filed a copy of this order in Case No. 1:14-cv-1959 DAD SKO P; Case No. 1:15-cv-0266 JLT P; and Case No. 2:17- cv-1402 CKD and serve it on the parties in said cases. Within 14 days from the date of this order any party to a case listed in paragraph two of this order may, but is not required, to respond to the Notice of Related Cases.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 07/06/2017. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2017) [Transferred from cand on 7/7/2017.]
|
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.
