Stewart v. City of San Diego et al
| Michael Stewart |
| City of San Diego and Pam Rowlett |
| 3:2009cv00844 |
| April 23, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Irma E. Gonzalez |
| William McCurine |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
104
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 99 101 103 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment: Plaintiff's papers are construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff's motion is denied. The Court will not accept for filing any additional requests for reconsideration by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/10/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER granting 60 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. The Court Denies Plaintiff leave to further amend his complaint. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/6/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER re: Plaintiff's 73 Request for Disclosure of Defendant Rowlett's Personnel Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 11/24/2010. (knh)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion for TRO, requiring Defendant Pam Rowlett to avoid contact w/ Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/22/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah) (jrl).
|
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 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.
