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.

Tyrone Adams v. Charles Easley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 26, 2012

TYRONE ADAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHARLES EASLEY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for sanctions came on regularly for hearing January 25, 2012. Plaintiff Tyrone Adams, who is proceeding pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Derek Haynes appeared on behalf of defendants Sutter County, Boyer, Cagle, Bagley ("Sutter" defendants). Matthew Day appeared on behalf of the defendants moving to dismiss ("Easley" defendants). Plaintiff submitted additional documents at the hearing. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. No later than February 9, 2012, defense counsel for the parties moving for sanctions shall submit a supplemental declaration regarding any additional fees which have been incurred subsequent to the filing of the motion for sanctions and detailed billing reflecting time spent on various tasks; defendants shall also submit declarations from other public entity defense attorneys supporting the claimed hourly rates.

2. No later than February 16, 2012, plaintiff may file a five page document responding to the supplemental declarations. The motion for sanctions will thereafter stand submitted.

3. The court will issue findings and recommendations on the motions to dismiss in conjunction with the findings and recommendations to be issued on the motion for sanctions.

4. Plaintiff's motion to stay (dkt. no. 91) is denied.

5. Plaintiff has requested the undersigned recuse herself from this action. The court finds that recusal is not warranted under any of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455.

6. The January 4, 2012 order limiting plaintiff's pleadings is modified. In addition to the pleadings allowed in that order, due to the death of defendant Trefcer, plaintiff may file a motion to substitute under Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 25.

20120126

© 1992-2012 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.