Goolsby v. San Diego, County of et al
| Thomas Goolsby |
| San Diego, County of, William Gore, K. Kamoss, Lawson, Brewer, F. Gonzales, John Does 1 - 25, John Does 26 - 50, Oliver, Price and M.R. Mesa |
| 3:2017cv00564 |
| March 21, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| William Q. Hayes |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| 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
186
ORDER: The Motion for Re-taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (ECF No. 183 ) is GRANTED. The Court declines to award costs to Defendant County of San Diego in this action. The Order of the Clerk of the Court Taxing Costs (ECF No. 182 ) is VACATED. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/29/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 154 ) is adopted in part and not adopted in part. Plaintiff's Objections (ECF Nos. 157 , 162 ) are overruled. Defendant's Objection (ECF No. 158 ) is sustained. The Motion for Summary Judgme nt filed by Defendant County of San Diego (ECF No. 137 ) is granted. The Renewed Ex Parte Motion for a Copy filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 160 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/6/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
154
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's 137 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Objections to R&R due by 3/3/2020 and Replies due by 3/10/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 2/18/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Extension on Deadline to File Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order; (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to Fi le MSJ Opposition, Appointment of Counsel, or in the Alternative, Order Directing Defendant to Provide Plaintiff with his Legal Property. (ECF Nos. 139 , 140 ) The Court ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff's request for an extension of time t o oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' motion by no later than December 6, 2019. Defendants shall file their reply by no later than December 20, 2019. (2) Plaintiff 's request for appointment of legal counsel is DENIED. (3) Defendants' request to vacate dates is GRANTED. The mandatory settlement conference set for October 16, 2019 and all remaining pretrial dates as set forth in the First Amended Sch eduling Order (ECF No. 111 ) are hereby VACATED, to be reset as necessary pending a decision on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 10/9/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(tcf)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER on Discovery Dispute No. 2. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses is denied. Defendant is instructed to lodge the verifications to the Set Three interrogatory and amended interrogatory responses for the court's review within 3 business days of this order. Defendant's Opposition (ECF No. 133 ), Joint Statement (ECF No. [133-1]), and Notice of Lodgment and Exhibits thereto (ECF No. [133-2]) are all hereby stricken from the record; Defendant shall refile these documents with appropriate redactions within 3 business days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 8/19/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Copy Service, Law Library Access, Telephone Access, etc. (ECF No. 121 ) As to transfer for the purposes of deposition, that request is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs requests for copy service and phone service are also denied. Finally, Plaintiffs request regarding law library access is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 6/26/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER on 107 Discovery Dispute. Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Where required, Defendants shall produce documents within 14 days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 6/25/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER: The Motion for joinder (ECF No. 78 ) is Granted. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 86 ) is adopted in part and not adopted in part. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 67 ) is Granted in part and Denied in part. Plaintiff's claims against John Doe defendants are dismissed without discovery and without leave to amend. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Seely, Simms, Gardner, De la Torre, Lt. Smith, Sgt. Froisted, Price, Leon, Bravo, Martinez, Rios, and Mesa are dismissed without leave to amend. Service by the U.S. Marshals is no longer required with respect to any unserved individual defendants. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 01/08/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (electronic cc: USM) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER Denying 94 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Expert. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 11/07/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
86
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike; and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Request for Early Discovery. (ECF Nos. 67 , 74 ). Objections to R&R due by 10/12/2018. Any Reply due by 10/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 09/26/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Summons and Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/02/2018.(Plaintiff served copy of this Order (ECF No. 16 ) via U.S. Mail Service. Certified copies of Order Granting IFP (ECF No. 4 ), Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15 ), summons, and USM 285 forms will be sent with IFP package) (Certified Copy of this Order to USM. USM also electronically cc'd) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER: The Court: 1) Dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for failing to state a claim against all Defendants with the exception of County of San Diego and Sheriff William Gore in his official capacity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b); 2) Dismisses Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims for failing to state a claim against all Defendants with the exception of Defendant Lawson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b); 3) Gra nts Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in which to either: (1) Notify the Court of the intention to proceed with the Eighth Amendment claims only as to the County of San Diego and Sheriff William Gore in his official capacity and the Fourteenth Amendment claims as to Defendant Lawson; or (2) File an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his origin al pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 04/10/2018. (Per this Order, Plaintiff sent a copy of this Order and a blank civil rights complaint form via U.S. Mail Service)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER: The Court: 1) Denies Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8 ) as moot; 2) Dismisses Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims for failing to state a claim and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against all Defendants with the exception of County of San Diego and Sheriff William Gore pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b); 3) Grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in which to eit her: (1) Notify the Court of the intention to proceed with the Eighth Amendment claims only as to the County of San Diego and Sheriff William Gore in his official capacity; or (2) File an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of plead ing noted. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his original pleading. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 12/14/2017. (Per this Order, Plaintiff sent a copy of this Order and a blank civil rights complaint form via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER (1) Granting Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt # 2 ) And (2) Dismissing Complaint For Failing To State A Claim: The Watch Commander of SDCJ or his designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff's trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing monthly payments from his account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pur suant to 28 USC 1915(b)(2). The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Price and Mesa and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims. Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in which to either : (1) Notify the Court of the intention to proceed with the Eighth Amendment claims only; or (2) File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/26/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service. Copy mailed to Watch Commander of SDCJ. Per Order, a blank civil rights complaint form also was sent to plaintiff.) (mdc)
|
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.
