Holder v. Saunders et al
||Terry J. King, Stacy M. Saunders and John Doe
||May 2, 2013
||Kentucky Eastern District Court
||Amul R. Thapar
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner Petitions (Prison Condition)
|Cause of Action:
||28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|August 11, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) dfts motion to dismiss or in the alternative for S/J, R. 25 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows. a. Robert Farleys motion for S/J is GRANTED, and he is DISMISSED. b. Terry King s motion for S/J is GRANTED, and he is DISMISSED. c. Stacy Saunderss motion to dismiss or in the alternative for S/J is DENIED. (2) By Friday, August 22, 2014, dfts SHALL FILE a document stating David Berkebile s current mailing address, so that the Court can order the USMS to serve him with Holders complaint. If the dfts believe that David Berkebile was not the warden of Big Sandy on the date of the attack, then they should so inform the Court. (3) The Court will enter a separate order referring this matter to the Magistrate Judge for discovery. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 8/11/14. (MJY) cc: COR, Holder via US Mail
|December 16, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Saunders motion for reconsideration, R. 40 , is GRANTED IN PART as to Holders race. (2) With Holders race no longer at issue, Saunders motion for reconsideration, R. 40 , is DENIED IN PART as to the motion for summary judgment. Saunders motion for summary judgment, R. 25 , is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 12/16/14.(MJY)cc: COR, Holder via US Mail
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.