Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) et al
| Charles Anderson Miller |
| California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Z. Ahmed, D. Bright, Roberto DeLuna, O Beregovskaya, S. Posson, G Williams, C. Schultz, B. Troup and N. Knight |
| 5:2016cv02431 |
| May 4, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Monterey |
| PSLC CET |
| Edward M. Chen |
| Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
180
ORDER granting 177 Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/9/2019. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2019)
|
|
Filing
179
Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding. Matter Settled. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 9/4/2019. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 9/5/2019 a copy of this Order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2019) Modified on 9/5/2019 (glm, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing
149
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 148 TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S DOCKET RE: DEFENDANT WILLIAMS filed by G Williams. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/22/18. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2018)
|
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.
