Rodriguez v. Wiley et al
| Casey Bernard Rodriguez |
| Wiley, N. Gladblach, G. Ramirez, Collins, Nalley, Lappin, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, Jones and Watts |
| 1:2008cv02505 |
| November 19, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Prison Condition Office |
| Fremont |
| Philip A. Brimmer |
| Craig B Shaffer |
| None |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
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
126
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: Granting 125 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint With Prejudice. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/2/10.(ebs, )
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER accepting 78 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Accepting 101 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Granting in part and denying in part 75 Def endants' Motion to Dismiss. The motion is granted as follows: (1) all claims against the defendants in their official capacity are dismissed with prejudice; (2) all claims against defendants Gladbach and Bauer are dismissed with prejudice; (3) all claims asserted against the defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act are dismissed without prejudice; (4) plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed with prejudice; (5) plaintiffs second, third, and fourth claims fo r relief are dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants; and (6) plaintiffs fifth claim for relief is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Nafziger and Allred. The motion is denied with respect to the first claim for relief as to defendants Nafziger, Allred, Smith and Wiley, and with respect to the fifth claim for relief as to defendants Janson and Wiley, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/31/10.(ebs, )
|
|
Filing
96
COURTROOM MINUTES - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Status Conference held on 11/9/2009. ORDERED: Defendants shall produce the two A-1 documents in their possession, and producedocumentation regarding the third A-1 document to the Plaintiff no later than 5:00 p.m. on NOVEMBER 13, 2009. ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint # 75 on or before DECEMBER 4, 2009. Defendants may file a Reply t o Plaintiff's Response within 15 days. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Request for a Rule 56 Subdivision (f) of Federal Rules of Civ. Proc. # 84 (docketed by the Clerk of the Court as a Motion for Summary Judgment) is DENIED as MOOT by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. (Court Reporter FTR - Linda Kahoe) (cbscd)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER denying 79 Motion for Default Judgment by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 8/21/2009.(cbscd)
|
|
Filing
78
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 30 Plaintiff Rodriguez' MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be denied, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 8/14/09. (ebs, )
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER granting 53 Mr. Rodriguez' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. #53-2) is accepted for filing nunc pro tunc on 6/1/09. Denying as a motion 49 Mr. Rodriguez' Notice of Errors and Reques t for Sanctions for and Correction of Defendants['] Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief. This document shall be treated as his Reply to Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. #46), by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 6/10/09.(ebs, )
|
|
Filing
48
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/29/2009. Denying as moot 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Granting Defendants' Oral Motion to Withdraw D efendants' Motion to Dismiss. Withdrawing without prejudice 24 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Granting Plaintiff's Oral Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Sanctions. Withdrawing without prejudice 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Sanctions. Granting Plaintiff's Oral Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Withdrawing without prejudice 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanction s. Granting Plaintiff's Oral Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Withdrawing without prejudice 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff shall have to and including 5/29/09 to fi le a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff shall have 15 days from today's date to file a reply in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction 30 . Status Conference set for 6/16/2009 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Plaintiff shall appear by telephone by calling chambers at the scheduled time. (Court Reporter FTR - Ellen E. Miller.) (ebs, )
|
|
Filing
47
MINUTE ORDER granting 44 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 4/27/09.(ebs, )
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting 35 Mr. Rodriguez' Request to Track Plaintiff's Filings. The request is granted to the extent that the court has clarified the motions that are currently pending before the court and that will be addressed at the Status Conference set on Wednesday April 29, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 4/15/09.(ebs, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
