Saldana v. Borem et al
| Gilbert Saldana |
| D Foston, John Doe II, J Tim Ochoa, R Madden, T Borem, M Hodges Wilkins and John Doe I |
| 3:2011cv00633 |
| March 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Imperial |
| Larry Alan Burns |
| William McCurine |
| 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
59
ORDER Dismissing Claim Against Defendant T. Borem for Failure to Serve and to Prosecute. Saldana's claims against defendant T. Borem are dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend, for both failure to serve and failure to prosecute. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court finds no just reason to delay entry of judgment on these claims, and therefore orders the entry of final judgment in favor of Defendant Borem on all claims Saldana has brought against him in this action. The Clerk shall enter this judgment in the docket. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/11/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting in part and denying in part motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 29th Order. The deadline set in the Court's order of February 29 is extended to April 4, 2012, to give Saldana sufficient time to file his amended complaint if he wishes to do so. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/28/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 30 ; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss, all claims are dismissed; the due process claims are dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed without prej udice; if plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he may do so no later than 28 calendar days from the date this order is issued; because all claims against Defendants Foston and Wilkins have been dismissed, the motion for entry of default [20 ] against them is denied as moot; if the plaintiff is able to amend his complaint, the Court will then screen it and, if appropriate, direct the U.S. Marshals to re-attempt service; Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/24/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff 9;s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court ea ch time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); US Marshal shall effect service of complaint; Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff's Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a); (Order electronically transmitted to Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR); Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/3/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(IFP package prepared)(kaj)(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.
