Williams v. Ortega et al
| Lance Williams |
| O. Ortega, F. Lewis, M. Kimani, R. Valencia, A. Bowman, Malagoza and S. Bustos |
| 3:2018cv00547 |
| March 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Larry Alan Burns |
| Mitchell D. Dembin |
| 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
129
ORDER Adopting Report And Recommendation [DKT. 114 , 82 ]. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/30/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxf)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 120 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/21/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
114
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82 ). Objections to R&R due by 1/19/2021. Replies due by 1/26/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/4/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 108 ). The Court denies Plaintiff's request to impose monetary sanctions. The Court orders Defendants to file a declaration explaining whether their production complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) on or before 1/8/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/29/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint a Private Investigator (ECF No. 91 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/21/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 85 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/15/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, Appoint Counsel and Extend Discovery Deadline (ECF No. 78 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/2/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER Denying 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs request to issue the subpoena he sent to the Court in July for the same reasons outlined in the Courts prior order. Except for certain discovery ordered to be provided by Defendants no later than September 24, 2020, discovery is now closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 09/17/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mme)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Letter and Request for Subpoena Documents (ECF No. 57 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/6/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Prosecute His Claims. All claims against Melgoza in the amended complaint are deemed stricken, and Melgoza need not respond to them or any more claims in this action. Williams should either dismiss his claims against thes e Defendants, or immediately begin prosecuting his claims against them. If he does not, these claims may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/21/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt) (Main Document 42 replaced on 2/24/2020) (jdt).
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER Denying 35 Request to Stay Case Pending Interlocutory Appeal. The Court's order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed withoutprejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 calendar days. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/20/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER Granting Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendation; ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation; and ORDER Dismissing Claims Against Defendants Melgoza and Kimani. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which Williams has made specific written objections, and overrules the objections. The Court finds the R&R to be correct, except that because Melgoza permitted Williams to ask the sergeant for medical help, it is obvio us he cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference. The R&R is deemed modified to include this change. So modified, the R&R is adopted. The Court grants in part the motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 26 .) All claims against Melgoza are dismissed w ith prejudice and Melgoza is dismissed as a party. Claims against Kimani for falsifying medical records are also dismissed with prejudice. Claims against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are dismissed without prejudice. If Williams believes he can successfully amend to state a claim against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, he may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date this order is issued. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/4/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt) Modified on 11/5/2019 to correct filing date. NEF regenerated (jdt).
|
|
Filing
29
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26 ). It is recommended that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted. Objections to R&R due by 9/23/2019. Replies due by 9/30/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/6/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER: 1) Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 ); and 2) Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Complaint and Summons Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court directs the Acting Secretary o f the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from Plaintiff's trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's incom e and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Ralph Diaz, Acting Secreta ry, CDCR. The Court directs the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 ) and to forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff wi th certified copies of this Order, his Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve these Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/10/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM and to Ralph Diaz, Acting Secretary, CDCR, PO Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001) (jdt)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER 1) Granting 3 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; 2) Denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis as Barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and Dismissing Civil Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Pay Filing Fee Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court 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); and directs the Clerk of Court to close the file. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/25/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)
|
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.
