Van Dusen v. Purcell et al
| Jan Van Dusen |
| Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, Richard A. Honn, Ronald W. Stovitz, Lucy Armendariz, Patrice E. McElroy, W. Kearse McGill, Donald F. Miles, Yvette D. Roland, David J. Pasternak, Jayne Kim, Terese Laubscher, Terrie Goldade, Robert A. Henderson, Heather Abelson, Jaime Saucedo and Joseph Carlucci |
| 3:2016cv04976 |
| August 30, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Alameda |
| Laurel Beeler |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
38
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2019)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Adopting 30 Report and Recommendation to Dismiss. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2019)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER. The attached order dismisses the case without leave to amend because fundamentally, the dispute challenges the state bar's interim suspension. As such, it is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. To the extent that there is any argument that the challenge is a general challenge to state-bar practices, Younger abstention bars the court's addressing the issue. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 10/27/2016)
|
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.
