Abbott v. Tootell et al
| Joe Abbott |
| E. Tootell, J. Grant, M. Jones, J. Matan, J. Arnold and C. Semen |
| 5:2011cv00183 |
| January 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Marin |
| Lucy H. Koh |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 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
217
Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 10/18/2017. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017)
|
|
Filing
169
Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding. The parties did not reach an agreement. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 7/2/14. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)
|
|
Filing
167
WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued for presence of Plaintiff at settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 5/8/2014. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2014)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER Rescheduling Telephonic Status Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas on 5/2/14. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2014)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF NOTICE AND WARNING. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/16/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2012)
|
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.
