Navarette v. Pioneer Medical Center et al
| Sixto Q. Navarette and Navarette Q. Sixto |
| Pioneer Medical Center, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service and Dr. Mark Whyte |
| 3:2012cv01269 |
| May 24, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Bernardino |
| Marilyn L Huff |
| Nita L Stormes |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651 mn Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
ORDER DISMISSING CASE sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file a motion to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. 1914(a) and 1915(a); and dismisses this action as duplicative litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) because Petitioner is already litigating the same claims presented in the instant action in Navarette v. Pioneer Medical Center, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12-CV-0629-WQH (POR). Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 05/31/2012.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION against Bureau of Prisons, Pioneer Medical Center, U.S. Marshals Service, Mark Whyte, filed by Sixto Q. Navarette. (Filing fee $ 350.00; fee not paid; no IFP filed) The new case number is 3:12-cv-1269-H-NLS. Judge Marilyn L. Huff and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes are assigned to the case.(skh) (av1). |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
