Lilly v. Hartley et al
Plaintiff: Curtis L. Lilly
Defendant: Steve Hartley, Jason Fassler, Robert Beaumont, Beth Nichols, M. Engle and Ari Zavaras
Case Number: 1:2010cv02738
Filed: November 9, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: Fremont
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 10, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 97 JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Justin Fassler against Curtis L. Lilly re: 96 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, by Clerk on 9/10/2013. (klyon, )
September 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER granting 84 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Trial Preparation Conference set 12/20/2013 and the trial set to commence 1/13/2014 are VACATED. Judgment shall enter in favor of the defendant, Mr. Jason Fassler, Correctional Officer, Fremont Correctional Facility, against the plaintiff, Curtis L.Lilly. The defendant is AWARDED his costs to be taxed by the clerk of thecourt. This case is Dismissed. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/9/2013.(klyon, )
June 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 95 TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE ORDER: Trial Preparation Conference set for 12/20/2013 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom A1001 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn.Four (4) day Jury Trial set for 1/13/2014 08:30 AM in Courtroom A1001 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/5/13. (rebsec, )
March 6, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER denying 73 Response and Motion To Object To the Defendants Motion for Leave To File Answer To Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Out of Time and for the Request To Appoint Counsel for the Plaintiff as Soon as this Honorable Court Could Provide. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/6/13. (kfinn, )
February 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT MR. ROBERT BEAUMONT, ONLY. re: 82 Stipulation filed by Robert Beaumont, Jason Fassler, Curtis L. Lilly. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Mr. Robert Beaumont are DISMISSED with each of the affected parties to pay its own attorney fees and costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/11/13. (kfinn, )
May 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 72 MINUTE ORDER granting 69 Motion for Leave to File Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Out of Time. Preliminary Scheduling/Status Conference set for 6/1/2012 09:45 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/17/12.(mjgsl, )
March 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 44 filed 7/21/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The plaintiffs objections 45 filed 8/1/2011, are OVERRULED. The defendants Motion To Dismiss 33 filed 5/27/2011, is GRANTED as to the p laintiffs Eighth Amendment claim. The plaintiffs Motion for Leave To File Amended Second Complaint 57 filed 9/29/2011, is GRANTED. The proposed amended complaint attached to the plaintiffs Motion for Leave To File Amended Second Complaint 57 fil ed 9/19/2011, is NOT ACCEPTED. On or before 4/15/2012, the plaintiff MAY FILE a second amended complaint. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to place the above-captioned case on the list of cases for which the court seeks volunteer counsel. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/13/2012.(sah, )
December 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 63 MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 61 Plaintiff's Motion for Current Status in Pending Civil Action, construed as a request for a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Plaintiff a current copy of the docket sheet in this case. The Court will grant no further requests of this kind absent a showing of exceptional cause. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/15/2011. (mehcd)
September 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 55 MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for this Court to Notify the Plaintiff Immediately that it did not Receive a Copy of the Second Amended Complaint as Requested by this Honorable Court. The Court warns the Plaintiff that any future motion construed to be duplicative or redundant may be stricken. See D.C. Colo. LCivR7.1H. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/7/2011. (mehcd)
August 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 52 MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Plaintiff's Motion to Re-Hear and to Clarify the Order Entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Hegarty on the 16th Day of August 2011, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/25/2011. (mehcd)
August 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 47 Plaintiff's [Motion for] Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Accordance with the Recommendation and all Applicable and Federal Court Rules, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/16/2011. (mehcd)
May 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [docket #33]. Plaintiff shall respond on or before 6/21/2011. Defendants may reply within fourteen days of Plaintiff's response. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/31/2011. (mehcd)
May 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 32 MINUTE ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's "Petition for a Writ of Duces Tecum on the Above Defendants," by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/23/2011. (mehcd)
April 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider the Order Denying Motion for Court Appointed Attorney 26 is denied. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/22/2011.(sah, )
March 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER Requiring Service by United States Marshal, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/25/11. (lsw, )
March 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to A District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Defendants Steve Hartley and Ari Zavaras are dismissed as parties to this action for Plaintiff's failure to allege their personal participation. Plaintiff&# 039;s claim asserting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violatin of the Eighth Amendment, is dismissed. Plaintiff's " Amendment to Civil Action and Response-Answer to Defendants Request to Remove Named Parties in Pris oners Civil Action Complaint" 13 , which request, in part, that the Court not dismiss Defendants Hartley and Zavaras from this action, is denied for the reasons discussed in this Order. This case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/17/2011.(sah, )
February 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER Denying Petition for Recusal and Other Incidental Motions 9 . ORDERED that the Petition for the Recusal of the Honorable United StatesMagistrate Boyd N. Boland is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lilly's request for appointment of counsel is denied as premature. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Petition for an Additional (30) Days" to file an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Mr. Lilly shall have up to and including 3/14/11 to file his Amended Complaint as directed in the Court's 1/13/11, Order Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/2/11.(lyg, )
January 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint within 30 days by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/13/11. (jjh, )
November 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency within 30 days by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/15/10. (jjh, )
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lilly v. Hartley et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Curtis L. Lilly
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Steve Hartley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jason Fassler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert Beaumont
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Beth Nichols
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: M. Engle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ari Zavaras
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?