Pinholster v. Wong et al
| Scott Pinholster |
| R. S. Wong, D. A. Dacanay, B. Grundy, D. Coleman, B. Ebert, A. Mincy and C. Seman |
| 4:2009cv01744 |
| April 21, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| Marin |
| Saundra Brown Armstrong |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
29
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 23 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, to Stay the Case Pending Resolution of Plaintiff's State Habeas Action Responses due by 8/15/2012. Replies due by 8/30/2012. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2012)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 19 Motion (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER re 17 Letter,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 3/13/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2012)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/15/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2012)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 1 Complaint. Plaintiff to file Amended Complaint within (30) thirty-days of this Order. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 10/26/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009) Modified on 10/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
|
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.
