Altamirano v. Pima, County of et al
| Benjamin Anthony Altamirano, Jr. |
| Pima, County of and Tucson, City of |
| 4:2015cv00169 |
| April 22, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pima |
| Rosemary Marquez |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
236
ORDERED that the admissibility of Plaintiff's proffered witnesses as set forth in Defendant's First Motion in Limine (Doc. 191 ), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 195 ), Plaintiff's Sur-Reply (Doc. 226 ) and Defendant's Response to Sur-Reply (Doc. 227 ) is resolved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's November 20, 2020 Order (Doc. 223 ) is amended to reflect that factual issues 11 and 12 are inadmissible, for the reasons set forth in that Order. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that the Court's November 30, 2020 Order (Doc. 225 ) is modified with respect to that Order's findings on Motion in Limine 1, as set forth herein. Review attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 2/26/2021. (MCO)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 207 Motions in Limine 1, 2 and 3. Motion in Limine 1 is granted as to those portions of the police reports that contain statements that are based on factual investigation, including statements based on an officer's observation and knowledge. Motion in Limine 1 is denied as to those portions of the police reports that contain hearsay statements in the form of statements attributed to other people who will not testify at trial. Motion in Limine 2 is granted. Motion in Limine 3 is granted (see attached Order for complete details). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 11/30/2020. (MFR)
|
|
Filing
223
ORDERED granting in part and denying in part 191 Defendant's First Motion in Limine; denying 201 Second Motion in Limine; denying 202 Third Motion in Limine; granting 203 Fourth Motion in Limine; Defendant's Fifth Motion in Limine ( Doc. 204 ) is denied except that search warrant evidence may not be used to prove specific instances of Detective Van Norman's conduct in order to attack his credibility. Review attached ORDER for complete details. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 11/19/2020. (MCO)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDERED that: Defendant City of Tucsons Motion for Clarification (Doc. 171 ) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: a) The Motion is granted with respect to the City's request for clarification on Plaintiff's malicious prosecut ion and conspiracy claims. The Court clarifies that its July 31, 2019 Order (Doc. 154) granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and conspiracy claims. Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and conspirac y claims against Defendant City of Tucson are accordingly dismissed. b) The Motion is denied with respect to all other requests for relief. (2) Defendant City of Tucson's Rule 42(b) Motion for Separate Trial (Doc. 172 ) is denied as moot. (3) Defendant City of Tucson's Motion to Order Reply, Oral Argument, or Both (Doc. 178 ) is denied. (REVEIW ORDER FOR DETAILS) Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 2/6/2020. (MCO)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER that Defendant Pima Countys Motion to Stay Proceedings as to Defendant Pima County Pending Resolution of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 165) is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED staying this case as to Defendant Pima County pending resolution of the in terlocutory appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference on December 11, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. as to Defendant City of Tucson only on the issue of whether the stay should also apply to City of Tucson. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipula ted Motion to Extend Joint Proposed Pretrial Order Deadline (Doc. 169) is partially taken under advisement and partially denied as moot. The Stipulation is taken under advisement as to Defendant City of Tucson and is denied as moot as to Defendant Pima County. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 11/18/19. (MYE)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER that the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 144 ) is granted in part. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 145 ) is granted in part. Defendant Pima County's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 123 ) is denied. Defendant City of Tucson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 125 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/31/2019. [Review ORDER for complete details.] (MCO)
|
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 Arizona 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.
