Rogers v. Giurbino et al
| Tyrone Rogers |
| G J Giurbino, Domingo Uribe, Jr., Unknown,, R Briggs and D Foston |
| 3:2011cv00560 |
| March 21, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Imperial |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| Irma E. Gonzalez |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr 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
163
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reopen time to file a notice of appeal (See ECF Nos. 159 , 162 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall serve Plaintiff with copies of the Court's February 2, 2017 Order, (ECF No. 157 ), the Clerk& #039;s Judgment (ECF No. 158 ), and this Order. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/19/2017. (USCA Case Number 17-55693. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. Copies of 157 Order, 158 Clerk's Judgment, and 163 Order have been mailed to Plaintiff. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER: Any further amendment to the complaint would be futile. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (Dkt # 151 ) is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/2/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 145 ) is adopted in its entirety. The motion to dismiss (Dkt # 129 ) filed by Defendants Giurbino and Uribe is granted. The motion to dismiss (Dkt # 131 ) filed by Defendant Kuzil-Ruan is granted. Plaint iff's First Amendment claims against all Defendants in their individual capacity are dismissed with prejudice based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for damages against all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff& #039;s RLUIPA and First Amendment claims for injunctive relief against all Defendants in their official capacity are dismissed with leave to amend. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days from the date this Orde r is filed to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. If Plaintiff does not file a motion for leave to amend the complaint within sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed, the Clerk of the Court shall close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/7/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
|
|
Filing
144
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 135 Ex Parte. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 7/18/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendant's 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Denying Plaintiff's 92 Ex Parte Application. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/26/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Court approves and adopts in full Magistrate Judge Brook's 67 Report and Recommendation. Denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/18/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 39 Motion for Reconsideration re 33 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/2/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/28/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER (1) denying without prejudice 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; and (2) Dismissing without prejudice First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim: Plaintiff is GRANTED 45 days leave from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 6/7/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(1983 form sent)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel is denied w/o prejudice. Secy of CA Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall collect from Pla's prison tru sct acct the $350 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from the acct in an amt equal to 20% of the preceding motion's income and forward to Clerk of Court each time amt in acct exceeds $10 in accordance w/ 28 U SC 1915(b)(2). Pla's Complaint is dismissed w/ prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). Pla is granted 45 days leave from the date this Order is filed to file a First Amended Complaint. If Pla's Amended Complaint fails to st ate a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed w/o further leave to amend and may be counted as a "strike" under 28 USC 1915(g). (Order electronically transmitted to Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR). Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/20/2011. (Blank First Amended 1983 Complaint form t/w copy of this mailed to Plaintiff), (Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed as part of Complaint 1 ) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah). Modified on 4/20/2011 - Corrected spelling (jah).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
