Mykins v. Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) et al
Rosa Mykins |
Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR), Thomas James Craig, Jena Jo Michael Craig, Sheila V. Stone and Baldwin County Department of Human Resources |
1:2011cv00264 |
May 20, 2011 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama |
Mobile Office |
Mobile |
William H. Steele |
Bert W. Milling |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 50 Order granting in part denying in part 45 MOTION for leave to Seal Document filed by defendants. Defendants are ordered by 12/19/2012 to refile Exhibits 17-26 redacting only the minors' names to initials. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 12/12/2012. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tgw) |
Filing 47 Order re: 45 MOTION for leave to Seal Document filed by the defendants. The defendants are ordered to file a supplemental brief by 11/6/2012. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/23/2012. Copy mailed to Rosa Mykins. (tgw) |
Filing 29 Order granting in part denying in part 17 MOTION to Dismiss. Surviving the motion to dismiss are the Title VI claim (Count 7) as against the DHR defendants and the conspiracy claims (Counts 10-12) as against the Craigs. Plaintiff is ordered by 10/14/2011 to file an amended complaint as set out. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 9/29/2011. (tgw) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.