Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ingram v. Sacramento Police Dep't

May 20, 2009

CHADERICK A. INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Plaintiff has filed numerous unnecessary or improper documents, all of which will be disregarded or denied pursuant to this order.

IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss, memorandum in support of response, and further response to motion to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20) will be disregarded because the defendants have not filed a motion to dismiss;

2. Plaintiff's response to defendants' request for admissions and interrogatories (Doc. No. 21) and plaintiff's request for admission (Doc. No. 23) will be disregarded because the documents have been filed in violation of Local Rules 33-250(c) and 36-250(c);

3. Plaintiff's request for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is denied without prejudice because the filing does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56-260; and

4. Plaintiff's document titled "Court Decision," which has been docketed in error as an amended complaint(Doc. No. 25), will be disregarded because it has not been submitted pursuant to any rule or statute and lacks merit.

20090520

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.