Gerald L. Tucker v. Department of Correction et al
| Gerald L. Tucker |
| Department of Correction and Daniel Paramo |
| 3:2016cv01846 |
| July 20, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Peter C. Lewis |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
19
ORDER DISMISSING First Amended Complaint as Frivolous And For Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1915(e)(2)(B) And 1915A(b). It is ordered that the Court denies Plaintiff further leave to amend as futile; Certifies that an appeal of thi s final Order of dismissal would be frivolous and therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3); and the civil action is terminated. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/14/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER: 1) granting 16 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and 2) Dismissing Complaint for Failing to State a Claim and as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). The Secretary CDCR, or his designe e, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account an d 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). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/17/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(§ 1983 Complaint sent to Plaintiff)(kcm)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER denying 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Dismissing Action without Prejudice. Plaintiff's IFP Motion (ECF No. 9) is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee re quired by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new IFP Motion that includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2(b). The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP" in this matter. If Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently completes and files the attached IFP Motion, together with a certified copy of his trust account statement, within forty-five days, this action shall remained dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/9/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kcm)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING Civil Action without Prejudice for Failing to Pay Filing Fee Required By 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and/or Failing to Move to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/21/2016.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(IFP Form sent to Plaintiff)(kcm)
|
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.
