Dickey v. Strayhorn et al
| Gary Dickey |
| D. Strayhorn and D. Paramo |
| 3:2017cv00546 |
| March 17, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Jill L. Burkhardt |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
36
ORDER: (1) Adopting 35 Report and Recommendation; and (2) Granting Defendant D. Paramo's 22 Motion to Dismiss. The Court (1) adopts Judge Burkhardt's R&R in its entirety, and (2) grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Warden Paramo, (ECF No. 22 ). The Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment cause of action against Defendant Paramo. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/8/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)
|
|
Filing
35
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting Defendant's 22 Motion to Dismiss. Objections to R&R are due by 2/12/2018. Replies are due by 2/22/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 1/22/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER Denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 9/26/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 15 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is ordered that this denial is without prejudice, however, and Plaintiff is therefore not precluded from requesting the appointment of counsel at a later stage in this case, should he be able to make the requisite showing of exceptional circumstances at that time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 7/21/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER Denying without Prejudice Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Viewing the exceptional circumstances factors together, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or that he cannot articulate his claims and litigate this action pro se. Accordingly, plaintiff has not established the exceptional circumstances required for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. This denial is without prejudice, however, and plaintiff is therefore not precluded from requesting the appointment of counsel at a later stage in this case, should he be able to make the requisite showing of exceptional circumstances at that time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 5/25/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
