Davis et al v. Small et al
| Ruben M Davis and Eric R Lindfors |
| Larry Small, Matthew Cate, J Tim Ochoa, G J Janda, G Trujillo, G Stratton, G Edwards, A Beltran, R Davis, J Jimenez, A R Bettencourt, Joshua Rocha, Matthew Resler, E Garcia, R Fregoso, S Rutledge, F Rodriguez, F Z Mata, J Manning and E Loya |
| 3:2010cv01606 |
| July 29, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Michael M. Anello |
| Anthony J. Battaglia |
| 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
46
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 32 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. It is hereby ordered that the Court grants Defendant's Fregoso's Motion to Dismiss all claims against him that were found in the S econd Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall terminate Defendant Fregoso from the docket. It is further ordered that Defendants Loya, Rocha and Resler shall serve and file an Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(B). Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/25/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER granting 20 Motion for Permission for Removal of All Exhibits from Previous Pleadings to Attach to Amended Complaint; Dismissing Defendants Not Stated in Second Amended Complaint; and Dismissing Claims For Failure to State a Claim and Directing USMS to Effect Service on Remaining Defendants and Claims. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/9/2011. (Pro Per Packaged Prepared) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER: Granting 11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Granting 12 Motion for Removal of Exhibits and Request to attach Exhibits to First Amended Complaint. The case is Dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon whi ch relief may be granted. Plaintiff is granted forty five (45) days from the date this Order is Filed in which to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/17/2011. (Order electronically transmitted to Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR) (1983 Form Mailed to Plaintiff) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER: (1)Denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Ruben M. Davis; (2) Severing Claims and Parties pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.21; and (3) Dismissing Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. It is ordered that the claims b rought by Plaintiff Lindfors are severed from this action and Plaintiff Davis shall proceed as the sole Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new civil action with the Complaint with Eric Lindfors as the Plaintiff. It is further ordered that Plaintiff Davis' motion to proceed IFP is denied. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prepay the $350 filing fee and for failure to successfully move to proceed IFP. Plaintiff Davis is granted 45 d ays fromt he date this Order is filed to either pay the $350 filing fee or file a new motion to proceed IFP. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/12/2010. (Civil Rights Complaint form mailed to Plaintiff) (cc: HC/Prisoner Clerk) (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.
