Chavez v. The Board of County Commissioners for the County of San Miguel et al
| Angelico Chavez |
| The Board of County Commissioners for the County of San Miguel, Fourth Judicial District Attorney's Office, The City of Las Vegas, Antonio Padilla, Anthony Madrid, Jaymie Virgil and Diego Romero |
| 1:2024cv00345 |
| April 10, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of New Mexico |
| Kea W Riggs |
| John F Robbenhaar |
| Jennifer M Rozzoni |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 10, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of acknowledgement receipt of records (bap) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE REGARDING DOCUMENT ENTRIES: Because this case has been reassigned to a district judge, please be advised that any documents filed by the parties under Rule 73(b) have been permanently removed from the docket. Document(s) removed: Nos. 3 and 4. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (kg) |
| Filing 8 Letter of Remand to Fourth Judicial District Court (bap) |
Filing 7
ORDER REMANDING CASE by District Judge Kea W. Riggs granting #5 Motion to Remand to State Court (bap)
|
| Filing 6 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to District Judge Kea W. Riggs as the trial judge. Under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.1, the first page of each document must have the case file number and initials of the assigned judges.Accordingly, further documents filed in this matter must bear the case number and the judges' initials shown in the case caption and the NEF for this document. Kindly reflect this change in your filings. Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar no longer assigned to this case.[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (eh) |
| Filing 5 Joint MOTION to Remand to State Court by Angelico Chavez. (Soto, Ramon) |
| Filing 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial. Appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge will be to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is the responsibility of the case filer to serve a copy of this Notice upon all parties with the summons and complaint. Consent is strictly voluntary, and a party is free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. Should a party choose to consent, notice should be made no later than 21 days after entry of the Order setting the Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference. For e-filers, visit our Web site at www.nmd.uscourts.gov for more information and instructions.[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (bc) |
| United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar and United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer M. Rozzoni assigned. (bc) |
| Filing and Administrative Fees Received: $ 405 receipt number ANMDC-9306519 re #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Fourth Judicial District Attorney's Office (Payment made via Pay.gov)(Carrillo, Raul) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Fourth Judicial District Attorney's Office from Fourth Judicial District Attorney's Office, case number D-412-CV-2024-00067. ( Filing Fee - Online Payment), filed by Fourth Judicial District Attorney's Office. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Carrillo, Raul) |
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 New Mexico 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.
