Tate v. Andres
| Derek Tate |
| J. Andres |
| 2:2018cv00822 |
| April 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Amador |
| Allison Claire |
| 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
102
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/19/2022 ORDERING Plaintiff is advised that he may submit his settlement conference statement by placing it in the U.S. mail. The envelope shall be marked SETTLEMENT STATEMENT and the statement should be mailed so that it is received by the court at least 7 days before the settlement conference.(Rodriguez, E)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/07/22 ORDERING the Custodian to produce by zoom video conference Derek Tate on 1/10/23 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The cu stodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. The clerk of court shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian. (cc: I.T. Dept, Sacramento)(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/01/22 ORDERING that within 14 days of the service of this order, any party may request that the settlement conference be conducted by a magistrate judge other than the undersigned. If no party requests a different magistrate judge, a settlementconference will be scheduled before the undersigned.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/29/22 ADOPTING 82 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 72 Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSING, without prejudice, Plaintiff's claim of retaliation against def endant Andres for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This case will proceed on plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Andres. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.(Licea Chavez, V)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/12/22 DENYING 73 Motion to Dismiss. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant's motion for partial summary judgment 72 be granted. Plaintiff's claim of ret aliation against defendant Andres be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The case proceed on plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Andres. Motion 72 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/30/2020 ORDERING that the parties may file dispositive motions within 30 days of the service of this order. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/29/20 DENYING 63 Motion for a protective order; GRANTING 66 Motion to strike his motion for sanctions, construed as a motion to withdraw; and WITHDRAWING 65 Motion for sanctions. (Plummer, M) Modified on 7/29/2020 (Plummer, M).
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/21/20 DENYING 60 Motion for sanctions and to find defendant in contempt. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/30/20 VACATING 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/24/2020 GRANTING plaintiff's 41 motion to compel; VACATING the 4/24/2020 dispositive deadline to be re-set after the pending discovery matter has been resolved; and DENYING as moot defend ant's 55 motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions. Within 30 days, defendant shall provide a supplemental response to Request for Production No. 1, as set forth in this order, and simultaneously file a notice of service of the response. Plaintiff may file a motion for sanctions within 60 days of the service of this order if defendant fails to respond to the discovery requests as ordered. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/24/2020 DENYING plaintiff's 46 motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff's 45 letters to defense counsel are construed as exhibits to his 41 motion to compel. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/14/2020 DENYING as MOOT 42 Motion for Court Ordered Copies. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/11/19 ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations in full DENYING 29 Motion to Strike and DENYING 30 Motion for TRO. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/24/2019 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 29 motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses be denied, and plaintiff's 30 motion for temporary restraining order be denied. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/03/19 DENYING 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/23/19 GRANTING 22 defendants' request to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR project. The stay of this action, commencing 8/05/19 21 , is lifted. Within 21 days of the filing of this order, defendant shall file a response to the complaint. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/02/19 REFERRING CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING CASE FOR 120 DAYS. The plaintiff shall file the attached notice re settlement conference within 30 days of this order. 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. (cc: assigned Deputy Attorney General)(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/27/2019 DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Derek Tate. The custodial agency shall collect an initial partial filing fee and monthly payments in accordance with this order until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. (cc: CDCR and Financial Department) (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION of the Eastern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/6/2018. New Case Number 2:18-cv-00822-AC (PC). Old Case Number 1:18-cv-00463-SAB (PC). (Jessen, A)
|
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
| Search for this case: Tate v. Andres | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Derek Tate | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: J. Andres | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
