Johnson v. Doe et al
| Sedric Eugene Johnson |
| John Doe, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Unknown |
| 3:2017cv01309 |
| June 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Kern |
| William V. Gallo |
| William Q. Hayes |
| 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 for Failing to State a Claim and for Seeking Monetary Damages Against Immune Defendants. The Court: 1) Dismisses this civil action without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1); 2) Certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and 3) Directs the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 02/12/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 4 ) is Granted. The Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff's prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by ga rnishing 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)( 2). Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 9 ) is Denied. The Court sua sponte dismisses the Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff is Granted forty-five (45) days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/18/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service. Per Order, blank Amended Complaint form also sent to Plaintiff. Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR. Per Order, copy of Order also mailed to Secretary of CDCR.) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee requi red by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). (2) 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 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to pro vide 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 Motion to Pr oceed IFP, together with a certified copy of his trust account statement within 45 days, this action will remained dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/3/2017. IFP form along with copy of order sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
|
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.
