Hill v. Rowley et al
| Rickie L. Hill |
| C. Rowley and K. Spiers |
| 3:2015cv00038 |
| January 20, 2015 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Robert C. Jones |
| Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
191
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice pursuant to ECF No. 190 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER granting ECF No. 115 Motion to Stipulate; the parties shall file the Joint Pre-Trial Order on or before, 5:00 P.M., Friday, October 11, 2019. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ECF No. 112 is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 104 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/2/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER granting ECF No. 97 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Dispositive Motions due by 12/21/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry on 11/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER the Report and Recommendation ECF No. 90 should be ADOPTED and ACCEPTED; Plaintiff's motions ECF Nos. 69 , 70 , 77 , 83 , 84 and 89 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER adopting ECF No. 47 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying ECF No. 43 Motion for Recusal; denying ECF No. 49 Motion to Strike; denying ECF No. 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER granting Plaintiff's ECF No. 1 IFP application - NDOC to pay Clerk from inmate account (copy of order sent to Finance and NDOC Chief of Inmate Services); directing Clerk to e-serve NV AG with this order and ECF No. 5 Complaint ( NEFs sent 3/2/2017). AG to advise Court within 21 days re service. Answer due within 60 days for any defendants represented. Plaintiff shall serve defendants copy of all pleadings and include certificate of service. See order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 3/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER giving Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint curing deficiencies of the complaint; directing Clerk to send Plaintiff 1983 form, instructions, copy of ECF No. 5 Complaint, and a copy of ECF No. 13 USCA Memorandum (mailed 10/ 18/2016). If Plaintiff chooses not to file amended complaint, action shall proceed only on the sexual harassment and equal protection claims against Rowley for unwanted touching of Plaintiff's person. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER granting 1 IFP application; directing Clerk to detach and file 1 -1 complaint; dismissing complaint; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
