Lucero v. Armale et al
Plaintiff: Jason Lucero
Defendant: S. Armale and W. Gillis
Case Number: 3:2017cv00957
Filed: May 1, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Ruben B. Brooks
Presiding Judge: Barry Ted Moskowitz
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER of Dismissal [ECF Nos. 31 , 41 ]. This Action is Hereby Ordered Dismissed with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/2/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sxa)
October 24, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER: 1) GRANTING MOTIONS REQUESTING COURT ASSISTANCE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ECF Nos. 25 , 26 AND (2) RE-DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE UPON DEFENDANTS ARMALE AND GILLIS PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 10/24/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (sjm)
November 14, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER 1) DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 17 AND 2) GRANTING MOTION FOR U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) 15 .. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 11/12/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjm)
June 21, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER: (1) Construing Amended Complaint as Civil Rights Action Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and (2) Ordering Plaintiff to Effect Service of Amended Complaint or Request U.S. Marshal Service Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 6/20/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mxn)
August 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: 1) Denying 5 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 2) Dismissing Civil Action for Failing to Pay Filing Fees and for Failing to Allege Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.3, Fed. R. Civ. P.8(a)(1)-(3), and Fed. R. Civ. P.12(h)(3). The court Grants Plaintiff 45 days from the date of this order to re-open case by prepaying $400 filing fee; or completing and filing a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint and filing an Amended Complaint that conforms with Rule 8. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/14/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mxn)
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: Lucero v. Armale 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: Jason Lucero
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. Armale
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: W. Gillis
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?