Roman v. Adams et al

Plaintiff: Isidro Roman
Defendant: Derral G Adams, Crones, Giurbino and Zamora
Case Number: 3:2007cv01343
Filed: July 23, 2007
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Janis L. Sammartino
Referring Judge: Louisa S Porter
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
May 1, 2012 140 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 133 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 5/1/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
August 25, 2011 113 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING 108 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting in part and denying in part 99 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/25/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
November 18, 2010 98 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying without prejudice 94 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 11/18/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
August 5, 2010 90 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING 88 89 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 70 Motion to Dismiss and 78 Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and grants leave to amend those claims which are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Fourth Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies stated in Magistrate Judge Porter's R&R on the motion to dismiss within 45 days of the date this Order is electronically docketed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/5/10.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
June 15, 2009 64 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Adopting in Part, Rejecting in Part 55 R&R; Granting in Part, Denying in Part 41 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend these allegations: All claims against Knowles, Eighth Amendment claims against Zamora, Second cause of action (for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs) against Giurbino, Second cause of action against Bourland, Paramo, & Bell, and First cause of action against Butler, Newman, & Greenwood. The Court grants leave to amend the first and second causes of action as to all dismissed defendants. The state-law claims (to the extent they are dismissed herein) & the Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. Defendant R. Din is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint no later than August 17, 2009. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/15/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service, USM 285 forms sent).(pdc) (jrl).
January 26, 2009 55 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendants' 41 Motion to Dismiss be Granted. Any party may file written objections by 2/27/2009. Any reply must be filed no later than ten days after being served with the objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 01/26/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mkz)
August 6, 2007 2 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failing to pay filing fees and/or move to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is stamped "Filed" to (a)prepay the entire $ ;350 civil filing fee in full; or (b)complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiff wit h the Court's approved form Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $350 civil filing fee or complete and submit the Motion to Proceed IFP within forty-five days, this civil action shall remain dismisses without prejudice and without further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Roger T. (bar, ).

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: Roman v. Adams et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Isidro Roman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Derral G Adams
Represented By: Attorney General
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Crones
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Giurbino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Zamora
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
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?