Espinoza v. Asuncion et al
| Jose Juan Espinoza |
| D. Asuncion, N. Walker, L. Pennisi, E. Mazariegos, R. Monroy, J. Aboytes, J. Gutierrez, M. Alvarez, A. Avalos, R. Castillo-Ruiz, R. Morales, D. Murphy and M. Morales |
| 3:2016cv01263 |
| March 14, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Monterey |
| Laurel Beeler |
| PSLC CET |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
129
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court grants the defendants summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Espinoza did not exhaust his available administrative remedies. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/25/2017)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER denying 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 74 Administrative Motion. The court denies the summary-judgment motion challenging the exhaustion of administrative remedies, denies the defendants' evidentiary objections as moot because the court does not rely on the disputed evidence, and denies the plaintiff's administrative motion to respond to the defendants' objections. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 3/24/2017)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER OF SERVICE: Re 1 Complaint filed by Jose Juan Espinoza. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/29/2016. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2016)
|
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 Northern 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.
