Chrisman v. Smith et al

Plaintiff: Ronald Chrisman
Defendant: David Smith, M. Sheridan, M.X. McCurty, D. Koludrovic, K. Hawthorne, Uknown Escalante, Unknown Richards, R.N. Marquez, DOES and C. Navamani
Case Number: 3:2008cv00975
Filed: June 6, 2008
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Referring Judge: Leo S. Papas
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
December 16, 2010 80 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting Defendants' 70 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismisses with Prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sheridan, Escalante, and Marquez. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/16/2010. (knh)
February 5, 2010 61 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 56 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Court grants Dfts Smith and McCurty's motion to dismiss Pla's claims under the Eighth Amendment, denies Dft Marquez's motion t o dismiss Pla's claims under the Eighth Amendment, grants Dfts' motion to dismiss Pla's substantive due process and equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and grants Dfts' motion to dismiss Pla's claims agains t them in their official capacities. Court dismisses Pla's claims against Dfts Smith and McCurty w/ prejudice and w/o leave to amend. Dfts Sheridan, Escalante and Marquez are ordered to file a Answer to the Second Amended Complaint w/in 10 days after the filing of this Order. Court orders Pla to show cause w/in 10 days of the filing of this Order, why Pla's claims against Dft Dr. Richards should not be dismissed pursuant to FRCP Rule 4(m). Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/5/2010. (jah) (jrl).
August 31, 2009 48 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/31/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service). (jah) (jrl).
August 19, 2009 46 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Plaintiff's 45 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. Pla may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date this Order is filed. Defendants' 43 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is denied as moot, subject to renewal if Pla elects not file a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/19/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah) (jrl).

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: Chrisman v. Smith et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ronald Chrisman
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: David Smith
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: M. Sheridan
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: M.X. McCurty
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: D. Koludrovic
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: K. Hawthorne
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: Uknown Escalante
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: Unknown Richards
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: R.N. Marquez
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: DOES
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: C. Navamani
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?