Franklin v. Scribner et al
| Gregory Allen Franklin |
| L E Scribner, M E Bourland, T Ochoa, R Nelson, Jr., M D Greenwood, R Madden, R Davis, G Hopper, S F Arias, C Maciel, D Bertheau and Larry A Small |
| 3:2009cv01067 |
| May 29, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Imperial |
| Michael M. Anello |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
137
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 130 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. Supplemental responses are to be provided by Defendants on or before November 9, 2012. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc 102 ) because it has been superseded by Plaintiff's Amended Motion (Doc 130 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 10/18/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)(jrd)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants Defendants' motion and Dismisses Plaintiff's 8/11/2007 & 9/16/2007 First Amendment retaliation claims without prejudice. Defendant Maciel is dismissed from this action. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims. The Court Grants Defendants' motion and Dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court Grants Defendants' motion and Dismisses Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities and Denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. Th e Court Grants Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of this order to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court grants leave to amend only as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim as alleged against Defendant Small. Plaintiff may not allege any new claims against any additional defendants. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/4/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER Providing Plaintiff Notice of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune as to 53 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. The Court sets the following schedule: Plaintiff may file Response in Op position to Defendants Motion by 12/20/2010, Defendants may file a Reply by 12/27/2010. At that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers and will thereafter issue a written Order. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required on the date set for hearing and no oral argument will be held. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/8/2010.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER: (1) Dismissing Defendants and Claims in Third Amended Complaint for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b); and (2) Directing US Marshal to Effect Service of Third Amended Complaint on Remaining Defendants. It is hereby ordered that Defendants K Thornton, D Bertheau and K Raske are dismissed from this action and terminated from the docket. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/13/2010. (Pro Per Package Mailed)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
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.
