(PS) Royster et al v. City of Sacramento et al
Plaintiff: Andre Royster, CR Legal, Sr. and Chris Legal, Sr
Defendant: City of Sacramento, Davis Police Depts, City of Davis and Davis Police Departments
Case Number: 2:2018cv02713
Filed: October 5, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Presiding Judge: Allison Claire
Referring Judge: Kimberly J Mueller
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 30, 2018 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, RTS, insufficient address, unable to forwarde: #6 Order, sent to Chris Legal, Sr. Notice of Change of Address due by 2/7/2019. (Reader, L)
November 30, 2018 Filing 13 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/29/2018 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)
November 30, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: #13 Findings and Recommendations served on Chris Legal Sr. and Andre Royster. (Huang, H)
November 14, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/13/18 ORDERING that plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 14 days, why the failure to file proper IFP applications should not result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The filing of proper IFP applications within this timeframe will serve as cause and will discharge this order. The court notes that the #10 Interlocutory Appeal filed by plaintiffs does not stay this case and does not impact the deadlines in this order. If plaintiffs fail to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case. (Benson, A.)
November 14, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: #12 Order to Show Cause, served on Chris Legal Sr., Andre Royster. (Benson, A.)
October 26, 2018 Filing 11 USCA CASE NUMBER 18-17088 for #9 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Chris Legal, Sr. (York, M)
October 24, 2018 Filing 10 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re #9 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Chris Legal, Sr. Notice of Appeal filed *10/22/2018*, Complaint filed *10/5/2018* and Appealed Order / Judgment filed *10/23/2018*. ** *Fee Status: Not Paid - Billed* Bill for fees due sent to *Chris Legal, Sr.* (Attachments: #1 Appeal Information, #2 Bill for Appeal Fee) (Huang, H)
October 24, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: #10 Appeal Processed to USCA, served on Chris Legal Sr. and Andre Royster. (Huang, H)
October 23, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/23/2018 DENYING #4 Motion for TRO. This matter is REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge Claire for future handling in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). (Donati, J)
October 23, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: #8 Order served on Chris Legal Sr, Andre Royster. (Donati, J)
October 22, 2018 Filing 9 NOTICE of INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to #8 Order by Chris Legal, Sr. (Huang, H)
October 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/12/18 DENYING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from the date of this order to renew the IFP application in proper form, or to pay the filing fee. (Huang, H)
October 15, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: #6 Order served on Chris Legal Sr. and Andre Royster. (Huang, H)
October 12, 2018 Filing 7 NOTICE of RELATED CASE 2:99-cv-00494, 2:14-cv-02984, 1:09-cv-00540 by Chris Legal, Sr. (Coll, A)
October 12, 2018 Filing 5 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: The court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order. ECF No. #4 . After review, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule 231 by failing to file an "affidavit detailing the notice efforts to effect notice to the affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice should not be given." Additionally, it appears the event sought to be restrained has already occurred, thus rendering the TRO request moot. The court also notes that it appears plaintiff Chris Legal, Sr. has filed on behalf of co-plaintiff Andre Royster under a power of attorney authority. Generally, each pro se plaintiff must represent himself and may not file on behalf of another. For these reasons the motion is denied. The court will provide a more thorough explanation in a short written order to be filed Monday, October 15, 2018. So ordered. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C)
October 12, 2018 SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order at ECF No. 5 served on Chris Legal Sr. and Andre Royster. (Schultz, C)
October 11, 2018 Filing 4 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and REQUEST for Judicial Notice by Chris Legal, Sr.(Becknal, R) Modified on 10/12/2018 (Kastilahn, A).
October 9, 2018 Filing 3 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Andre Royster. (Becknal, R)
October 5, 2018 Filing 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Andre Royster. (Washington, S)
October 5, 2018 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Request for TRO and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants by Andre Royster. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Washington, S) Modified on 10/5/2018 (Washington, S).
October 5, 2018 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP filed - Action Required. (Washington, S)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: (PS) Royster et al v. City of Sacramento et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Sacramento
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: Davis Police Depts
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: City of Davis
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: Davis Police Departments
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 ]
Plaintiff: Andre Royster
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 ]
Plaintiff: CR Legal, Sr.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Chris Legal, Sr
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.


Why Is My Information Online?