Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Arline v. Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 1, 2010

KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN KEN CLARK, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (Doc. 4.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Keith Duane Arline, Jr. ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint commencing this action on June 27, 2007 in the Western Division of the United States District Court of the Central District. The case was transferred to the Eastern District on July 16, 2007. (Doc. 4.)

On May 15, 2009, defendant Ken Clark filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 22.) On March 31, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 40.) This action now proceeds on the original complaint against Defendant Ken Clark, on plaintiff's claims for inadequate outdoor exercise under the Eighth Amendment, with regard to only two specific instances of modified programming, one beginning on August 15, 2006, and the other beginning on October 20, 2006. (Doc. 41.)

At this stage of the proceedings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ken Clark shall file an answer to the complaint, within thirty days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100601

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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