Vickers v. Jensrud, et al
||Officer J. Jensrud and John Does 1-20
||November 19, 2012
||Oregon District Court
||Portland (3) Office
||Michael W. Mosman
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|November 13, 2013
OPINION AND ORDER: Because the parties have submitted extensive materials outside the complaint, Defendants motion to dismiss 27 Mr. Vickerss Bivens claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is converted into one for summary judgment. The parties will have an opportunity to submit additional evidenceand argument. Defendants motion to dismiss Mr. Vickerss negligence claim against the United States is GRANTED for lack of jurisdiction, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed on 11/13/13 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|June 9, 2014
OPINION AND ORDER. Mr. Vickers has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Jensrud knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and as to whether he failed to respond reasonably to such a risk. In addition, Mr. Vickers does not dispute that he encountered any such risk voluntarily. As the Doe defendants are concerned, Mr. Vickers has not argued that any Sheridan official aside from Officer Jensrud displayed deliberate indifference. Defendants motion for summary judgment on Mr. Vickerss Bivens claim is GRANTED. Signed on 6/9/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
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 Oregon 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.