Lee v. Clark County Detention Center et al
| Robin M. Lee |
| Clark County Detention Center and Sheriff Gillespie |
| 2:2014cv01426 |
| September 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Jennifer A. Dorsey |
| Carl W. Hoffman |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
117
ORDER that 101 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and 104 Motion for Summary Judgment and 107 Motion to Reconsider are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment for Metro and against Lee and to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
115
ORDER granting in part ECF No. 113 Motion to Strike; to the extent that the court can determine which portions of this brief [ECF No. 112] constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in the court's evaluation of the cross-motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER that 84 Motion to Amend is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Lee's motion for leave of court [ECF No. 91 ], motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 92 ], and motion to amend proposed summons [ECF No. 99 ] are DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER that 77 Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that 81 Motion to Strike Response is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff's response to Defendant's answer (doc. # 76) from the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER that 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Lee's original complaint (Doc 1 at 11-12) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration of Orders Denying Court-appointed Counsel 25 and 66 are DENIED. Plaintiff� 39;s Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 28 is DENIED. Plaintiff's requests to amend to add parties 39 and 42 are DENIED. Plaintiff's fifth request for leave to amend with proposed amended complaint 43 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 58 and 62 are DENIED as moot and without prejudice. Plaintiff's request for a pretrial order and trial setting 73 is DE NIED as premature. FURTHER ORDERED that if Lee does not file an amended complaint by 9/18/15, that cures the stated deficiencies of the complaint outlined above, this case will be closed. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/13/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: blank forms w/instructions and pleadings sent to plaintiff - MMM)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER that 36 and 53 Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider Order on Appointment of Counsel are denied. FURTHER ORDERED that 54 Motion to Extend discovery is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER Denying 29 Motion to Receive Photocopies Due to Indigency. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/27/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
|
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 Nevada 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.
