Prettyman v. City of San Diego Police Department et al
| Kenneth Prettyman |
| City of San Diego Police Department, Christopher Luth and John Does |
| 3:2011cv00195 |
| January 31, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Michael M. Anello |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
17
ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; and Denying as Moot 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons stated herein, the Court Grants Defendants' motion,and Dismisses Plaintiff's claims With Prejudice. Because amendment would be futile and this Order disposes of all remaining claims, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is Denied as Moot. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate the case file. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/21/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court hereby ordered that the Clerk shall file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, and the CLerk shall issue a summons for Defendants City of San Diego Police Department and Christopher Luth, and forward it to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/17/2011. (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.
