Legal Opinion
(PC) Adams v. Dahl
District Court, E.D. California
Decided August 2, 2023No. 1:20-cv-00852Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ADAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00852-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE DISCOVERY AND 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER AND STAYING CASE 14 DAHL, et al., (Docs. 58) 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL 17 (Doc. 57) 18 19 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff Paul Adams is a parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 22 rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on First and Eighth Amendment 23…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Mladen Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Ernest S. Little v. City of Seattle John Doe Jane Doe, and David PaulCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.