Smith v. Woodford

Case Number: 5:2006cv00103
Filed: January 10, 2006
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Jose Office
Presiding Judge: Jeremy Fogel
Referring Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
March 30, 2011 114 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 94 , 107 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 3/30/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2011)
May 4, 2010 93 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY re 91 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/23/10. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2010)
March 5, 2009 59 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER OF CLARIFICATION Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/24/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009)
February 19, 2009 58 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS re 33 ; DISMISSING EXHAUSTED CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM; ADDRESSING OUTSTANDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/3/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2009)

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 this case: Smith v. Woodford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?