Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-290 - RODRIGUEZ v. WHITE et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-290 - RODRIGUEZ v. WHITE et al
February 10, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 5 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, 1 Complaint filed by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ. It is RECOMMENDED that the following claims be DISMISSED without prejudice: (1) claims against the Doe Defendants; (2) access-to-courts claims against Defendant White; (3) equal protection claims; (4) all due process claims based on the confiscation of Plaintiffs legal documents; and (5) Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant White. It is also RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that service be made on Defendant MANDO. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 2/10/2016. (ggs)
July 14, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING in part and REJECTING in part 6 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 10 Motion to Amend/Correct; and DENYING as moot 5 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The matter of identifying the Doe defendants for service is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge. The following claims may proceed against all Defendants: (1) access-to-courts claims based on the confiscation of the Plaintiffs legal documents; (2) claims based on repeated strip searches, including his equal protection claims; (3) religious freedom claims; (4) Eighth Amendment claims based on denial of restroom breaks, and (5) retaliation claims. His due process claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is ORDERED that service be made on Commander White and Correctional Officer Lando and that they file an answer or such other response as may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/14/2016. (tlh)
May 22, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING 73 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/22/2017. (tlh)
July 27, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER finding as moot 64 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JAMES ROE, ERICK MILES, JAMES WHITE, ANDREW LEYDEN, MARSHALL KITRELL, SYDNEY LANDOR, MICHAEL WILSON, MICHAEL MAHONE, BRIAN KNOX, TYLER ADAMS,; denying as moot 87 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 83 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by ERICK MILES, JAMES WHITE, MARSHALL KITRELL, SYDNEY LANDOR, BRIAN KNOX. It is recommended that the Defendants Motion beGRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 7/27/2017. (ggs)
November 2, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 98 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint filed by MARSHALL KITRELL, SYDNEY LANDOR, BRIAN KNOX, ERICK MILES, JAMES WHITE, 95 Amended Complaint filed by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR. It is RECOMMENDED that the Defendants Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that Plaintiffs equal protection claim related to strip searches be DISMISSED. It is RECOMMENDED thatPlaintiff be allowed to proceed on his equal protection claim related to the confiscation of his legal papers. the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 11/2/2017. (ggs)
February 9, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING in part and REJECTING in part 89 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING in part 83 Motion to Dismiss; ADOPTING 103 Report and Recommendations; and GRANTING 98 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's access-to-courts claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and his retaliatory strip search claims and equal protection claims relating to strip searches are DISMISSED without prejudice. The following claims remain: (1) the Plaintiff may pursue prospective equitable relief for his religious freedom claims but qualified immunity bars his damages claims; (2) the Plaintiff may pursue prospective equitable relief and nominal damages based on retaliatory confiscation of legal documents; and (3) the Plaintiff may pursue his equal protection claim based on confiscation of legal documents. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/9/2018. (tlh)