Rencher v. State Of Nevada et al
| Eddie Rencher, Jr. |
| Robert Bannister, Teodoro Bernardo, Brian Williams, Sr., Sharon Yeager, Cheryl Dressler, Rodrigo Espejo, Howard Skolnik and State Of Nevada |
| 2:2011cv01040 |
| June 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Robert C. Jones |
| George Foley |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
56
ORDER Granting 37 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify 39 is denied. Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order to file and serve specific written objections to the ruling together with points and authorities in support thereof. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Relief from Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER Granting 25 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint. Robert Bannister answer due 2/17/2012; Teodoro Bernardo answer due 2/17/2012; Cheryl Dressler answer due 2/17/2012; Rodrigo Espejo answer due 2/17/2012; Sharon LNU answer due 2/17/2012; Howard Skolnik answer due 2/17/2012; Brian Williams, Sr answer due 2/17/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/29/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER Denying 23 Motion for for relief from Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/7/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
|
|
Filing
18
SCREENING ORDER. Ordered that the Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order, the court's original screen order, and a copy of plaintiff's complaint on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attention Pamela S harp. The AG's Office shall advise the court within 21 days whether it can accept service of process for any named, but unserved defendants. Iff the AG accepts service of process for any named defendants(s), such defendant(s) shall file and serve an answer/response within 60 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/12/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER Granting 10 Motion for Relief from Order #9 pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court clarifies that if the parties are unable to settle during the ninety-day stay, no filing fee will be due in this removed action. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/8/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDERED counsel for the parties shall file a Joint Status Report no later than August 12, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 8/2/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER RE: Information Settlement Discussions. Clerk to provide a courtesy copy of this order and the to defendants' counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 7/22/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
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 Nevada 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.
