Alvarez v. Ko et al
Plaintiff: |
Vicente Arriga Alvarez |
Defendant: |
S. Ko, Connall McCabe, A. Sangha and J. Lewis |
Case Number: |
3:2016cv01302 |
Filed: |
May 31, 2016 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Southern District of California |
Office: |
San Diego Office |
County: |
Kings |
Presiding Judge: |
Marilyn L. Huff |
Presiding Judge: |
Nita L. Stormes |
Nature of Suit: |
Civil Rights |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
September 13, 2018 |
Filing
113
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Motion for Record of Proceedings on File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 9/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(A copy of this Order and a copy of ECF No. 91 has been mailed to the Plaintiff)(anh)
|
June 18, 2018 |
Filing
107
CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and finds it to be thorough, complete, and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court: (1) Adopts the Report in full; (2) Rejects Plaintiff's objections; and (3) Grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. It is So Ordered. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
|
April 6, 2018 |
Filing
100
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/6/2018.(jjg)
|
January 9, 2018 |
Filing
85
ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [ECF. No. 81 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 1/9/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
|
July 24, 2017 |
Filing
51
ORDER Denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 7/24/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
|
May 5, 2017 |
Filing
39
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 35 ] and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 24 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/5/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
|
April 3, 2017 |
Filing
36
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/3/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jjg)
|
March 24, 2017 |
Filing
35
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Denying Defendant's 24 MOTION to Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by Connall McCabe, J. Lewis, A. Sangha, S. Ko. Objections to R&R due by 4/7/2017 Replies due by 4/21/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 3/24/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)
|
June 28, 2016 |
Filing
8
ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. US Marshal shall effect service of complaint. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in th is case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR) ; Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; Denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction ; Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 6/28/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (dlg)
|
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?