McQuirter et al v. CDCR, et al
| Joseph McQuirter and Joseph L. McQuirter, DDS, Inc. |
| California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Morton Rosenberg |
| 2:2021cv01724 |
| September 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Deborah Barnes |
| Kimberly J Mueller |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 754 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 ANSWER by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Attorney Frank, Carolyn Jean England added.(Frank, Carolyn) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 1/27/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: #1 KJM Standing Order, #2 Consent to Magistrate Judge, #3 VDRP) (Becknal, R) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Morton Rosenberg* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Mark Steven Ravis* *Law Office of Mark Ravis* *26565 West Agoura Rd., Ste 200* *Calabasas, CA 91302*. (Becknal, R) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Joseph McQuirter. Attorney Ravis, Mark Steven added. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number BCAEDC-9830467) (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Ravis, Mark) |
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 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.
