Latham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Joshua Latham |
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Connie Gipson, Raymond Madden, Buckel, Orniz, J. Rocha, Dopewell, Ruelas, Ramero, Ramirez, La Tour, Meza, Taylor, Hugnes, Wingo and Does |
3:2022cv00842 |
June 8, 2022 |
US District Court for the Southern District of California |
Michael M Anello |
Michael S Berg |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
28 U.S.C. § 1441 cv Removal- Civil Rights Act |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 3 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court dismisses the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). Since amendment would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his claims in Case No. 20-cv-2177-LAB (BGS). This case is closed. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf) |
|
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACASDC-16896215.), filed by Connie Gipson. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Request for Screening, #3 State Court Complaint, #4 State Amended Complaint, #5 State Summons, #6 Proof of Service)The new case number is 3:22-cv-842-MMA-MSB. Judge Michael M. Anello and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (smy1) (jms). |
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
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.