Burnett v. Frayne et al
| O'Marr L. Burnett |
| Frayne, Adler, Buck, Bow and Ericsson |
| 4:2009cv04693 |
| October 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| Monterey |
| Saundra Brown Armstrong |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
110
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/21/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2013)
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 5/17/2013.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/3/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2013)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 92 Case Management Statement filed by Timothy R. Frayne, Suzanne Blick, Catherine R. Bow, Ryan Adler. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 3/5/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 95 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013)
|
|
Filing
90
Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding. Signed by Judge Nandor J Vadas on 8/6/12. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)
|
|
Filing
89
Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding; case not settled. Signed by Judge Nandor J Vadas on 8/6/12. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2012)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER re 86 Order Setting Settlement Conference and status conference. Telephonic status conference rescheduled for 7/10/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 205, 2nd Floor, Eureka before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 6/12/2012. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion CLARIFICATION (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Stay (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2012)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 58 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 58 Motion to Stay (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 44 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER by Judge 11/16/10 granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 12/30/2010. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2010)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 20 MOTION to Dismiss Responses due by 11/30/2010. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2010)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 27 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION to Dismiss Responses due by 9/30/2010. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2010)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS against Defendant Ericcson without Prejudice re 18 Order. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 6/29/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2010) Modified on 7/1/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/10/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2010)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/23/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2010)
|
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.
