Lambesis v. Abiaro et al
| Timothy Peter Lambesis |
| Mary Abiaro, Pace and John Doe |
| 3:2015cv01359 |
| June 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Riverside |
| Michael M. Anello |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| 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
21
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Defendant Abiaro's 7 Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's punitive damages claim against Defendant Abiaro. Plaintiff's medical negligence claim against Defendant Abiaro will proceed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/11/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER Granting 12 Defendant Motion Leave to File Amended Complaint and Extending Time for Service; Granting in Part 14 Motion for Reconsideration: The Court grants Plaintiff sixty (60) days from the date of this Order to effect service upon Defendant Pace. The Clerk of Court is instructed to provide Plaintiff with an additional IFP Package. The Court orders the U.S. Marshal will, within 30 (thirty) days of receiving Plaintiffs U.S. Marshal Form 285 and receipt of Defendant Paces confi dential forwarding address, effect service of Plaintiff's complaint and summons upon Defendant Pace, as directed by Plaintiff on the new U.S. Marshal Form 285 provided to him herein. The Court Grants in Part Plaintiff's motion for recons ideration [Doc. No. 14] and vacates its January 7, 2016 Order [Doc. No. 10] dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Abario. Plaintiff must file a response in opposition to Defendant Abario's motion to dismiss on or before March 18, 2016. Defendant Abario may file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on or before March 25, 2016. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/9/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Documents mailed to Plaintiff. dlg)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER Granting 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis; Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Summons and Complaint. The Court: Directs the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect the $62.96 initial filing f ee assessed by this Order from Plaintiffs prison trust account, and forward the remaining balance of the full $350.00 owed by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiffs account in an amount equal to twenty percent of the preceding month' ;s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff's account exceeds $10; Directs the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Jeffrey A. Beard; Orders the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and sum mons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff; Directs the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along with blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant. The Clerk will provide Plai ntiff with a certified copy of this Order, a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve Defendants; Orders Defendants to reply to Plaintiff's Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions; Orders Pl aintiff to serve upon Defendants or, if an appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants' counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document he wishes the Court to consider.. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/8/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
|
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.
