Cruz v. San Diego County Superior Court
| Antero Cruz |
| San Diego County Superior Court |
| 3:2021cv00952 |
| May 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Michael S Berg |
| William Q Hayes |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER Granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). Order DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)(1) and GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in which to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/24/2021. (A copy of this Order was served on Kathleen Allison, Secretary, CDCR) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag) Modified on 6/24/2021 to include dismissal language (jms).
|
|
Filing 3
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge William Q. Hayes Accepting re #1 Complaint from Plaintiff Antero Cruz. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Initial case filings (42 U.S.C. 1983 Complaint, Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, etc.) received by U.S. Mail and not properly e-filed in accordance with S.D. Cal. General Order 653A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is accepted despite the discrepancy noted above. Any further non-compliant documents may be stricken from the record. Signed by the Chambers of Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/18/2021.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jms)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Antero Cruz.(jms)(jrd)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT Against San Diego County Superior Court, filed by Antero Cruz. ($402.00 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:21-cv-952-WQH-MSB. Judge William Q. Hayes and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (jms)(jrd)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Cruz v. San Diego County Superior Court | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Antero Cruz | |
| 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: San Diego County Superior Court | |
| 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.
