Navarrette v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office et al
| Tommy Navarrette |
| Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Monteves and Q. Martin |
| 4:2022cv01226 |
| February 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| PSLC AGB |
| Phyllis J Hamilton |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice #4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying without prejudice #2 Motion for TRO. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Tommy Navarrette. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2022) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Tommy Navarrette. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2022) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Tommy Navarrette. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2022) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Q. Martin, Monteves. Filed byTommy Navarrette. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2022) |
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 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.
