Legal Opinion
Bradley James Mrozek v. T. Isaman
District Court, E.D. California
Decided May 22, 2026No. 1:24-cv-00664Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRADLEY JAMES MROZEK, No. 1:24-cv-00664-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND, DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO FILE PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING 14 T. ISAMAN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 15 Defendant. OF TIME 16 (ECF Nos. 54, 55, 58, 59) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Rhodes v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.