Popescu v. City of San Diego, et al

Case Number: 3:2006cv01577
Filed: August 8, 2006
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
Presiding Judge: Larry Alan Burns
Referring Judge: Leo S. Papas
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
January 6, 2012 124 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: (1) denying in forma pauperis Status on Appeal; and (2) denying Fees for Transcript on Appeal. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's 119 motion for in forma pauperis status on appeal and for payment of transcript fees on appeal is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., on 1/6/2012. (USCA Case Number 12-55016. Order electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)
December 7, 2011 114 Opinion or Order of the Court FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Court concludes Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that Officer Pagan violated his constitutional rights by issuing 1 or more parking violations in a discriminatory manner based on Plaintiff's political or religious beliefs. Accordingly, the Court finds for Defendant Pagan and against Plaintiff Popescu. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. on 12/7/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Popescu v. City of San Diego, et al
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?