Holmes v. Estock et al
Plaintiff: Charles Holmes
Defendant: Estock, Bal, S. Chaiken, C. Regules and Does 1-3
Case Number: 3:2016cv02458
Filed: September 28, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: Imperial
Presiding Judge: Michael M. Anello
Presiding Judge: Barbara Lynn Major
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
April 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 151 ORDER Following Mandatory Settlement Conference; Requiring Counsel to Meet and Confer Re: Pretrial Schedule. The Court hereby ORDERS counsel for the parties to meet and confer and file within the next fourteen (14) business days a joint status report that sets forth a proposed pretrial schedule, taking into account the scheduling restriction set forth in OCJ No. 62, the trial-related procedures set forth in the undersigned's Civil Chambers Rules IX and X, and any scheduling issues that may be germane to this action in light of Holmes' current health status, place of confinement, and so forth. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/14/2021. (tcf)
February 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ORDER Resetting Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Mandatory Settlement Conference is RESET for 4/1/2021 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 2/24/2021. (tcf)
February 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 146 ORDER Setting Mandatory Settlement Conference. The videoconference Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 3/3/2021 at 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 2/24/2021. (tcf)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 145 ORDER Denying 96 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Holmes claims must proceed to trial. However, in light of the ongoing global pandemic and pursuant to Chief Judge Order N o. 60, the Court will defer issuing a pretrial scheduling order at this time. The Court ORDERS counsel for the parties to jointly contact the chambers of the assigned magistrate judge, within ten (10) business days of the date this Order is filed, for the purpose of scheduling a settlement conference at the convenience of the magistrate judge. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/16/2021. (tcf)
February 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 112 ORDER Re: 111 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion. Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel or pro se, must file a response in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary jud gment on or before April 17, 2020. If Plaintiff files a timely response, Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion on or before April 30, 2020. If Plaintiff does not retain new counsel and does not wish to proceed pro se, Plaintiff's current counsel of record must file a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The appropriate Notice of Substitution or Motion to Withdraw must be filed on or before April 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/14/2020. (tcf)
January 28, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 107 ORDER Temporarily Deferring Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Requiring Plaintiff's Counsel to Clarify Status as Attorney of Record. The Court temporarily DEFERS ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to clarify his status as attorney of record for Plaintiff in this action by filing either a Notice of Continuing Appearance as Attorney of Record, a Notice of Substitution of Attorney of Record, or a Motion to Withdra w as Attorney of Record, on or before February 14, 2020. In the event counsel chooses to file a motion to withdraw, he must contact the undersigned's Chambers to obtain a hearing date prior to doing so. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/28/2020. (tcf)
November 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 103 ORDER Sua Sponte Granting Extension of Time to File Reply Brief; Vacating Motion Hearing. Defendants may file their reply brief on or before November 13, 2019. Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission on the br iefs, without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). Accordingly, no appearances will be required, and the hearing previously scheduled for November 18, 2019 is vacated. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/5/2019. (tcf)
March 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 83 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. The Court grants in part Defendants' motion and dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment official capacity claim against Defendant Estock without prejudice. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss in all other respects as set forth above. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/7/2019. (rmc)
November 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 60 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 55 Second Amended Complaint. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss as follows: The Court denies Defendants' motion to d ismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Estock and Currier in their individual capacities. The Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Governor Brown with prejudice . The Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Estock, Diaz, Nasir, and Montgomery in their official capacities without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his off icial capacity claims against Defendants Estock, Diaz, Nasir, and Montgomery. If he chooses to amend his official capacity claims against these three defendants, Plaintiff must file a Third Amended Complaint on or before 12/10/2018. Plaintiff may not add any new claims or parties. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in a Third Amended Complaint will be considered waived. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/8/2018. (rmc) Modified on 11/8/2018; no non-registeresd users to be served via mail (rmc). (Main Document 79 replaced on 11/8/2018) (amk).
June 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER Granting 37 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Estock, Ball, Regules, and Chaiken. Dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/20/2018. (rmc)
February 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER Granting in Part 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and to Allow for Filing of a First Amended Complaint and to Reopen Discovery for 120 Days. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on 7/12/2018 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 2/16/2018. (rmc)
December 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and for the Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff's request for a continuance is granted as follows: Rule 26 Supplemental Disclosures are due 1/19/2018. Ex pert Discovery must be completed on or before 2/16/2018. Any Pre-Trial Motions must be filed on or before 3/19/2018. A Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 6/7/2018 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major, with Confidential Statements due 5/29/2018. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 12/1/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
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 this case: Holmes v. Estock et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles Holmes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Estock
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bal
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: S. Chaiken
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: C. Regules
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does 1-3
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?