Gomez v. Tamez
Petitioner: Daniel Gomez
Respondent: Felix Tamez
Case Number: 1:2011cv00187
Filed: September 15, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office: Brownsville Office
County: Cameron
Presiding Judge: Felix Recio
Presiding Judge: Hilda G Tagle
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 21, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 80 OPINION AND ORDER denying 76 MOTION Issue Subpoenas. Plaintiff Daniel Gomez's "Motion to Subpoena" (DE 76) is DENIED and his instant lawsuit is DISMISSED, with prejudice.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Felix Recio) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1) Modified on 10/21/2013 (bcampos, 1).
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 Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gomez v. Tamez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Felix Tamez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Daniel Gomez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?