Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Docket Jones V Nash Holmes NVD

    Transféré par

    DoTheMacaReno
    13 vues5 pages
    Document Code: Zach Coughlin Nevada Bar No: 9473 temp susp., over this case 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tele: 775-338-8118 Fax: 949-667-7402 Attorney for Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE ZACH COUGHLIN; Appellant/Petitioner, vs. City of Reno; Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Case No: CR13-01816 Dept No: 8 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PAY FILING FEE AND BRING COMPLAINT INTO COMPLIANCE, OR, IN THE ALTERANTIVE, MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR VACATE 9/19/13 ORDER COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself respectfully submits this filing seeking some form of relief as to the apparent dismissal, essentially, with prejudice of Coughlin’s attempt to seek redress for a great deal of misconduct that was far from “immaterial” to him, where it may be the case that such Order of this court on 9/19/13 is tantamount to the running of the two year statute of limitations deadline Coughlin believes applies to any 42 USC 1983 suit, running from the 8/20/11 date of the initial of, so far, 21 incarcerations of Coughlin. The confluence of statute of limitations concerns and motions to proceed informa pauperis was, of course, of concern in another two matters this court is familiar with, CV11-01955, and CV11-01896. The IFP in 01896 was ultimately approved and the filing date was, ultimately, back dated to the date of Coughlin’s submission of a Proposed Complaint with his IFP sufficient to preclude the running of the “90 days from “receipt” (concept very much at issue in CV11-03628 incident to the WCSO’s burglaries of tenant’s in failing to accord tenant’s the “24 hours” from “receipt” of the “summary removal order” in NRS 40.253(5)(a)) of the EEOC Right to Sue Letter. Coughlin uses the qualifier, “ultimately” because it took much litigating on Coughlin’s part to convince Judge Adams of the after his early order assigned a filing date as of the August 2011 date of Judge Steinheimmer’s Order granting Coughlin’s IFP (which fell outside the 90 day’s from right to sue territory, where such rocky terrain led Coughlin to file what WLS sought to characterize as a “duplicative” suit in 01955, but which was really just a desperate safety measure, one that Coughlin sought to avoid prejudicing the defendants incident to his subsequent motion to consolidate the two matters, which both Judges Elliott and Adams denied…). The 9/19/13 Order in the case at bar presents a different scenario now, where the IFP was denied. How would the filing date for any Complaint that Coughlin is ultimately get past the filters to the access to justice be measured? Would such be tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice (just like the orders in 01955 and 01896 denying Coughlin’s Motion for Enlargement of time to effect service of process of the complaints, where the denials of such seems to operate a running of the 90 days statute of limitations as to Coughlin claims therein where the new suits that Coughlin would necessarily need file against such defendants would be assigned new filing date outside the 90 days from right to sue letter window…). Should not Coughlin be given some opportunity to bring his complaint into non NRCP 12(f) territory, especially where the result of the 9/19/13 Order herein could ultimately effect such a harsh, dispostive result? Does Coughlin have any opportunity to now pay the filing fee and submit a Complaint that addresses the ills reference in such Order? Is not Coughlin to be afforded the opportunity all other litigants have to amend his complaint once without seeking leave of court? Judge Stiglich's 9/19/13 entered Order in CV13-01618 reads: "The court has reviewed the proposed Complaint. It asserts federal civil rights claims and alleges jurisdiction is proper under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (the federal civil rights statute) and that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sectio

    Titre original

    00453 Docket Jones v Nash Holmes Nvd

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Document Code: Zach Coughlin Nevada Bar No: 9473 temp susp., over this case 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tele: 775-338-8118 Fax: 949-667-7402 Attorney for Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE ZACH COUGHLIN; Appellant/Petitioner, vs. City of Reno; Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Case No: CR13-01816 Dept No: 8 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PAY FILING FEE AND BRING COMPLAINT INTO COMPLIANCE, OR, IN THE ALTERANTIVE, MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR VACATE 9/19/13 ORDER COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself respectfully submits this filing seeking some form of relief as to the apparent dismissal, essentially, with prejudice of Coughlin’s attempt to seek redress for a great deal of misconduct that was far from “immaterial” to him, where it may be the case that such Order of this court on 9/19/13 is tantamount to the running of the two year statute of limitations deadline Coughlin believes applies to any 42 USC 1983 suit, running from the 8/20/11 date of the initial of, so far, 21 incarcerations of Coughlin. The confluence of statute of limitations concerns and motions to proceed informa pauperis was, of course, of concern in another two matters this court is familiar with, CV11-01955, and CV11-01896. The IFP in 01896 was ultimately approved and the filing date was, ultimately, back dated to the date of Coughlin’s submission of a Proposed Complaint with his IFP sufficient to preclude the running of the “90 days from “receipt” (concept very much at issue in CV11-03628 incident to the WCSO’s burglaries of tenant’s in failing to accord tenant’s the “24 hours” from “receipt” of the “summary removal order” in NRS 40.253(5)(a)) of the EEOC Right to Sue Letter. Coughlin uses the qualifier, “ultimately” because it took much litigating on Coughlin’s part to convince Judge Adams of the after his early order assigned a filing date as of the August 2011 date of Judge Steinheimmer’s Order granting Coughlin’s IFP (which fell outside the 90 day’s from right to sue territory, where such rocky terrain led Coughlin to file what WLS sought to characterize as a “duplicative” suit in 01955, but which was really just a desperate safety measure, one that Coughlin sought to avoid prejudicing the defendants incident to his subsequent motion to consolidate the two matters, which both Judges Elliott and Adams denied…). The 9/19/13 Order in the case at bar presents a different scenario now, where the IFP was denied. How would the filing date for any Complaint that Coughlin is ultimately get past the filters to the access to justice be measured? Would such be tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice (just like the orders in 01955 and 01896 denying Coughlin’s Motion for Enlargement of time to effect service of process of the complaints, where the denials of such seems to operate a running of the 90 days statute of limitations as to Coughlin claims therein where the new suits that Coughlin would necessarily need file against such defendants would be assigned new filing date outside the 90 days from right to sue letter window…). Should not Coughlin be given some opportunity to bring his complaint into non NRCP 12(f) territory, especially where the result of the 9/19/13 Order herein could ultimately effect such a harsh, dispostive result? Does Coughlin have any opportunity to now pay the filing fee and submit a Complaint that addresses the ills reference in such Order? Is not Coughlin to be afforded the opportunity all other litigants have to amend his complaint once without seeking leave of court? Judge Stiglich's 9/19/13 entered Order in CV13-01618 reads: "The court has reviewed the proposed Complaint. It asserts federal civil rights claims and alleges jurisdiction is proper under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (the federal civil rights statute) and that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sectio

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    13 vues5 pages

    Docket Jones V Nash Holmes NVD

    Transféré par

    DoTheMacaReno
    Document Code: Zach Coughlin Nevada Bar No: 9473 temp susp., over this case 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tele: 775-338-8118 Fax: 949-667-7402 Attorney for Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE ZACH COUGHLIN; Appellant/Petitioner, vs. City of Reno; Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Case No: CR13-01816 Dept No: 8 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PAY FILING FEE AND BRING COMPLAINT INTO COMPLIANCE, OR, IN THE ALTERANTIVE, MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR VACATE 9/19/13 ORDER COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself respectfully submits this filing seeking some form of relief as to the apparent dismissal, essentially, with prejudice of Coughlin’s attempt to seek redress for a great deal of misconduct that was far from “immaterial” to him, where it may be the case that such Order of this court on 9/19/13 is tantamount to the running of the two year statute of limitations deadline Coughlin believes applies to any 42 USC 1983 suit, running from the 8/20/11 date of the initial of, so far, 21 incarcerations of Coughlin. The confluence of statute of limitations concerns and motions to proceed informa pauperis was, of course, of concern in another two matters this court is familiar with, CV11-01955, and CV11-01896. The IFP in 01896 was ultimately approved and the filing date was, ultimately, back dated to the date of Coughlin’s submission of a Proposed Complaint with his IFP sufficient to preclude the running of the “90 days from “receipt” (concept very much at issue in CV11-03628 incident to the WCSO’s burglaries of tenant’s in failing to accord tenant’s the “24 hours” from “receipt” of the “summary removal order” in NRS 40.253(5)(a)) of the EEOC Right to Sue Letter. Coughlin uses the qualifier, “ultimately” because it took much litigating on Coughlin’s part to convince Judge Adams of the after his early order assigned a filing date as of the August 2011 date of Judge Steinheimmer’s Order granting Coughlin’s IFP (which fell outside the 90 day’s from right to sue territory, where such rocky terrain led Coughlin to file what WLS sought to characterize as a “duplicative” suit in 01955, but which was really just a desperate safety measure, one that Coughlin sought to avoid prejudicing the defendants incident to his subsequent motion to consolidate the two matters, which both Judges Elliott and Adams denied…). The 9/19/13 Order in the case at bar presents a different scenario now, where the IFP was denied. How would the filing date for any Complaint that Coughlin is ultimately get past the filters to the access to justice be measured? Would such be tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice (just like the orders in 01955 and 01896 denying Coughlin’s Motion for Enlargement of time to effect service of process of the complaints, where the denials of such seems to operate a running of the 90 days statute of limitations as to Coughlin claims therein where the new suits that Coughlin would necessarily need file against such defendants would be assigned new filing date outside the 90 days from right to sue letter window…). Should not Coughlin be given some opportunity to bring his complaint into non NRCP 12(f) territory, especially where the result of the 9/19/13 Order herein could ultimately effect such a harsh, dispostive result? Does Coughlin have any opportunity to now pay the filing fee and submit a Complaint that addresses the ills reference in such Order? Is not Coughlin to be afforded the opportunity all other litigants have to amend his complaint once without seeking leave of court? Judge Stiglich's 9/19/13 entered Order in CV13-01618 reads: "The court has reviewed the proposed Complaint. It asserts federal civil rights claims and alleges jurisdiction is proper under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (the federal civil rights statute) and that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sectio

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 5

    Query

    Reports
    Utilities
    Logout
    APPEAL
    United States District Court
    District of Nevada (Reno)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-WGC
    J ones v. Holmes et al
    Assigned to: J udge Larry R. Hicks
    Referred to: Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb
    Case in other court: 9th Circuit, 11-16556
    Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
    Date Filed: 01/24/2011
    J ury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
    J urisdiction: Federal Question
    Date Filed # Docket Text
    01/24/2011 Case assigned to District J udge Larry R. Hicks and Magistrate J udge Robert A. McQuaid, J r.
    (WJ ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
    01/24/2011 1 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Plaintiff J ason M. J ones. Motion
    ripe 1/24/2011. (Attachments: #1 Civil Rights Complaint, #2 Motion for Appointment of
    Counsel.)(KO) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
    01/25/2011 2 NOTICE to Plaintiff from USDC advising case against defendant Holmes, et al. has been
    received and assigned case number 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-RAM. (Inmate #*70541*) (KO)
    (Entered: 01/25/2011)
    04/06/2011 3 SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma
    pauperis. FURTHER ORD NDOC shall pay Clerk from inmate account. Clerk shall send
    NDOC Inmate Services this Order ( Mailed to NDOC 4/7/2011; E- service to Finance on
    4/7/2011 ). FURTHER ORD that even if this action is dismissed the full filing fee shall be
    due. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the complaint #1 -1. FURTHER ORD
    Ps complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief may be
    grnted. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by
    J udge Larry R. Hicks on 4/6/2011. (copy of complaint sent to P)(Copies have been
    distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
    04/06/2011 4 COMPLAINT, filed by J ason M. J ones. ( Filed by clerk and DISMISSED w prejudice per 3
    Order. ) ( Copy mailed to P 4/7/2011. ) (DRM) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
    04/07/2011 5 J UDGMENT - Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim
    for which relief may be granted. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 4/7/2011.
    (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
    04/21/2011 6 MOTION for District J udge to Reconsider Order re 3 Screening Order,, by Plaintiff J ason M.
    J ones. Responses due by 5/8/2011. ( Attachments: #1 Declaration of Anthony Fairchild
    )(DRM) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
    06/08/2011 7 ORDER DENYING P's 6 Motion for District J udge to Reconsider Screening Order. Signed by
    J udge Larry R. Hicks on 6/6/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
    (Entered: 06/08/2011)
    06/22/2011 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 3 Order, by Plaintiff J ason M. J ones. E-mail notice (NEF) sent to
    the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. ( Filing Fee NOT PAID ) ( Notice of Appeal NEF
    and PACER docket sheet mailed to P ) (DRM) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
    06/22/2011 9 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD on 8 Notice of Appeal.
    The record on appeal, consisting of the reporter's transcripts and the United States District
    Court clerk's record is ready for the purpose of the appeal.
    This file exists in electronic format and is accessible via CM/ECF - PACER. The documents
    comprising the United States District Court clerk's record have been numbered in conformance
    with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. These document numbers are
    reflected on the United States District Court's docket sheet and should be used for reference
    purposes in the briefs.
    Appeals in Habeas Corpus and 28 USC 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence cases are treated as
    civil appeals in the Court of Appeals. Criminal appeals briefing schedules will be issued upon
    the filing of this document.
    E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. (no image attached)
    (DRM) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
    06/23/2011 10 USCA TIME SCHEDULE ORDER and civil docketing letter dtd 6/23/2011 as to 8 Notice of
    Appeal. USCA case 11-16556 . (DRM) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
    06/24/2011 11 USCA REFERRAL NOTICE dtd 6/24/2011 re 8 Notice of Appeal : This matter is referred to
    USDC for the limited purpose of determining whether IFP status should continue for this
    appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. If USDC elects to revoke IFP
    status, the district court is requested to notify this court and the parties of such determination
    within 21 days of the date of this referral.(DRM) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
    06/30/2011 12 ORDER re 11 USCA Notice of Referral. IT IS ORDERED that any in forma pauperis appeal
    from its Order dated 4/6/2011 would not be frivolous or taken in bad faith. 28:1915(a)(3).
    Signed by J udge Larry R. Hicks on 6/30/2011. (Copy of Order sent to USCA via email
    electronic service) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC) (Entered:
    06/30/2011)
    08/09/2011 13 ORDER of USCA, Ninth Circuit, as to 8 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 11-16556.
    Appellant has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal and has
    completed and filed the required authorization form directing the appropriate prison officials to
    assess, collect, and forward to the district court the filing and docketing fees for this appeal.
    This court hereby assesses an initial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (A) the average
    monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's
    account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 06/22/2011 notice of
    appeal. Appellant is not responsible for payment when the funds in appellant's prison trust
    account total less than $10, but payments must resume when additional deposits are made or
    funds are otherwise available. The Clerk shall serve this order and appellant's completed
    authorization form on the Attorney General for the State of Nevada, who shall notify the
    appropriate agency or prison authority responsible for calculating, collecting, and forwarding
    the initial payment assessed in this order and for assessing, collecting, and forwarding the
    remaining monthly payments of the fee to the district court for this appeal. Each payment
    should be accompanied by the district court and appellate docket numbers for this appeal and a
    record of previous payments made for this appeal. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this
    order on the clerk and the financial unit of the district court. (Sent) Attorney General served via
    US Mail.) (Attachments: #1 Authorization Form)(MLC) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
    09/16/2011 14 ORDER of USCA, Ninth Circuit, dtd 9/16/2011 as to 8 Notice of Appeal : Order to show
    cause is discharged and this appeal shall proceed. Briefing set. (DRM) Modified on 9/16/2011
    to reflect USCA case 11-16556 . (DRM). (Entered: 09/16/2011)
    02/15/2012 15 ORDER of USCA, Ninth Circuit, as to 8 Notice of Appeal (USCA Case No. 11-16556).
    Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. No motion for reconsideration,
    clarification, or modification of this denial shall be filed or entertained. Appellant may not
    seek relief for new injuries in this appeal. Briefing is complete. (KO) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
    07/12/2012 16 MEMORANDUM/OPINION of USCA, Ninth Circuit, dtd 7/12/2012 as to 8 Notice of Appeal.
    VACATED and REMANDED. USCA case 11-16556 . (DRM) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
    08/06/2012 17 MANDATE of USCA, Ninth Circuit, as to 16 USCA Memorandum/Opinion. (USCA No. 11-
    16556). The judgment of this Court, entered J uly 12, 2012, takes effect this date. This
    constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules
    of Appellate Procedure. (MLC) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
    09/26/2012 18 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief J udge Robert C. J ones, on
    9/26/2012. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb
    for all further pretrial proceedings within his jurisdiction. Magistrate J udge Robert A McQuaid,
    J r no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 3:11-
    cv-00047-LRH-WGC. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the
    NEF - BLG) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
    10/16/2012 19 SCREENING ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that p's retaliation claim against deft Nash
    Holmes MAY PROCEED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that p's Eighth Amendment claims
    for deliberate indifference to a serious threat to his safety against defendants SDCC Warden
    Williams, Associate Wardens Cheryl Burson & J effrey Howe, Doe classification committee
    members, NDOC director Howard Skolnik, prison administrators J ames Cox, Steve Sure,
    Paula Miller, and SDCC caseworkers Kay Weiss and Daniel, officer Riley, HDSPs D.W.
    Nevan, Associate Wardens Morrow, Baca & Hinson, and Doe classification committee
    members MAY PROCEED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that p's Eighth Amendment claims
    for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants Bloomfield, Tate,
    Komusoff, nurse "Big J ohn," Fran Dressler, Cynthia Sybilla, drs. Sanchez, Aranas, and
    Mumford, and officers Mataley, Panzzo, Moten and Wolf MAY PROCEED. IT IS FURTHER
    ORDERED that all claims against defs McCrey, Nuneker, Hertz, Mustafa, and Bush are
    DISMISSED. These defendants are dismissed from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE p's mtn for appointment of counsel 1 . IT IS
    FURTHER ORDERED that p's mtn for counsel is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS
    FURTHER ORDERED as follows:Given the nature of the claims that the court has permitted
    to proceed, this action is STAYED for 90-days to allow plaintiff and defendant(s) an
    opportunity to settle their dispute before an answer is filed or the discovery process begins.
    The Clerk shall electronically SERVE a copy of this order and a copy of p's complaint on the
    Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attention Pamela Sharp. The Attorney
    Generals Office shall advise the Court within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the entry of
    this order whether it will enter a limited notice of appearance on behalf of the defendants for
    the purpose of settlement. Signed by J udge Larry R. Hicks on 10/9/2012. (90-day stay report
    due 1/14/2013.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ ) (Entered:
    10/16/2012)
    10/16/2012 20 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Plaintiff J ason M. J ones (FILED and DENIED
    PER ORDER 19 ).(HJ ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
    10/17/2012 21 ORDER re Informal Settlement Discussion.
    This case will not be referred for formal mediaiton. However, the Court finds that the parties
    will benefit from informal discussions in an effort to settle case. For this reason, a courtesy
    copy of this order and complaint shall be provided to defendants' counsel by Clerk of Court
    (service completed 10/17/12). Signed by Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb on 10/17/12.
    (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - J C) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
    10/22/2012 22 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 19 Screening Order. 'Return to Sender Released' addressed
    to J ason M. J ones at Lovelock Correctional Center. (J K) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
    10/26/2012 23 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 21 Order. "Return to Sender" addressed to J ason J ones at
    Lovelock Correctional Center. (HJ ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
    01/17/2013 24 STATUS REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATOTRNEY GENERAL RE RESULTS OF
    THE 90 DAY STAY by Defendant Isidru Baca. (Hagen, Brian) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
    01/18/2013 25 ORDER
    Clerk shall serve copy of this order, screening order 19 and Complaint 4 on AG's Office, attn
    Pamela Sharp (served 1/18/13). AG's Office to advise the court re service within 21 days (see
    order for instructions re service). Answer due within 60 days for any defendants represented.
    Plaintiff shall serve defendants copy of all pleadings. Signed by Magistrate J udge William G.
    Cobb on 1/18/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - J C) (Entered:
    01/18/2013)
    01/29/2013 26 Mail Returned as Undeliverable paroled re 25 Order addressed to J ason M. J ones. (J C)
    (Entered: 01/30/2013)
    03/19/2013 27 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Brian W. Hagen on behalf of Defendants Romeo Aranas,
    Isidru Baca, Cheryl Burson, J ames G. Cox, Daniel, J effrey Howe, Kayweiss, Paula Miller,
    Moten, Murrow, D.W. Nevan, Francisco Sanchez, Howard Skolnick, Tate, Brian Williams,
    Wolf. (Hagen, Brian) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
    03/19/2013 29 NOTICE of Under Seal Submission of Last Known Address by Romeo Aranas, Isidru Baca,
    Cheryl Burson, J ames G. Cox, Daniel, J effrey Howe, Kayweiss, Paula Miller, Moten, Murrow,
    D.W. Nevan, Francisco Sanchez, Howard Skolnick, Tate, Brian Williams, Wolf. (Hagen,
    Brian) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
    03/19/2013 30 ANSWER to 4 Complaint filed by Romeo Aranas, Isidru Baca, Cheryl Burson, J ames G. Cox,
    Daniel, J effrey Howe, Kayweiss, Paula Miller, Moten, Murrow, D.W. Nevan, Francisco
    Sanchez, Howard Skolnick, Tate, Brian Williams, Wolf. Certificate of Interested Parties due
    by 3/29/2013. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 4/18/2013.(Hagen, Brian) (Entered:
    03/19/2013)
    03/20/2013 31 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2-2: In accordance with 28 USC 636(c) and
    FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of
    Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of J urisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate
    J udge" form on the Court's website - www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Consent forms should NOT be
    electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form
    with the Clerk's Office.
    A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service. (no image
    attached) (KR) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
    03/20/2013 32 SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 6/18/2013. Motions due by 7/18/2013. Proposed
    J oint Pretrial Order due by 7/23/2013. Signed by Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb on
    03/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
    03/27/2013 33 J OINDER to 30 Answer to Complaint, ; Defendant David Mumford's Joinder in Answer to
    Complain filed by Defendant David (Dr.) Mumford. (Hagen, Brian) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
    04/03/2013 34 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel, by Plaintiff J ason M. J ones. Motion ripe 4/3/2013.
    (KR) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
    04/04/2013 35 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb, on
    4/4/2013. The clerk shall send to Plaintiff a copy of the docket herein and Doc. ##19 , 21 and
    25 . ( Specified documents mailed to P at HDSP on 4/4/2013. ) (Copies have been distributed
    pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
    04/08/2013 36 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb, on
    4/8/2013, DENYING Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Copies have been distributed
    pursuant to the NEF - KR) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
    04/30/2013 37 MOTION TO STOP RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST ME BY NDOC, Reconsideration for
    appointment of counsel, by Plaintiff J ason M. J ones. Responses due by 5/17/2013. (KR)
    (Entered: 04/30/2013)
    05/09/2013 38 RESPONSE to 37 MOTION, filed by Defendants Romeo Aranas, Isidru Baca, Cheryl Burson,
    J ames G. Cox, Daniel, J effrey Howe, Kayweiss, Paula Miller, Moten, David (Dr.) Mumford,
    D.W. Nevan, Francisco Sanchez, Howard Skolnick, Tate, Brian Williams, Wolf. Response to
    Plaintiff's Motion to Stop Retaliation and Reconsideration of Appointment of Counsel Replies
    due by 5/19/2013. (Hagen, Brian) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
    06/26/2013 39 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 37 Motion. Signed by Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb on
    06/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
    06/28/2013 40 First MOTION to Extend Time regarding dispositive matter (First Request) by Defendants
    Romeo Aranas, Isidru Baca, Cheryl Burson, J ames G. Cox, Daniel, J effrey Howe, Paula
    Miller, Moten, David (Dr.) Mumford, Murrow, D.W. Nevan, Francisco Sanchez, Howard
    Skolnick, Tate, Brian Williams, Wolf. Motion ripe 6/28/2013. (Hagen, Brian) (Entered:
    06/28/2013)
    07/01/2013 41 ORDER GRANTING 40 Motion to Extend Time : Dispositive Motions due by 9/16/2013.
    Signed by Magistrate J udge William G. Cobb on 7/1/2013. (Copies have been distributed
    pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
    07/08/2013 42 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 39 Order on Motion, addressed to J ason M. J ones. "Not at
    HDSP." (KR) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
    07/09/2013 43 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 41 Order on Motion, addressed to J ason M. J ones. "Not at
    HDSP." (KR) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
    PACER Service Center
    Transaction Receipt
    09/16/2013 05:19:57
    PACER
    Login:
    zc0210 Client Code:
    Description:
    Docket
    Report
    Search
    Criteria:
    3:11-cv-00047-LRH-
    WGC
    Billable
    Pages:
    5 Cost: 0.50

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi