Woodis v. Law Office of Gary Marks et al
| Deno E. Woodis |
| Law Office of Gary Marks and State of California |
| 3:2017cv01527 |
| July 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| Larry Alan Burns |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
12
CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court dismisses this civil action both as frivolous and for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) and denies leave to amend as futile. and certifies that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf) Modified on 10/17/2017 to update docket text (lrf).
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER: 1) Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 8 ] and 2) Dismissing Civil Action For Failing to State a Claim and as Frivolous Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/13/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Copy sent to Facility Commander, San Diego Sheriff's Department, Vista Detention Facility)(lrf) Modified on 10/17/2017 to update docket text (lrf).
|
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.
