Boyd v. Town of Hayneville et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)

Plaintiff: Daniel Boyd
Defendant: Town of Hayneville, Kelvin Mitchell, Sheryll Phipher, George Davis, Carole Scrushy, David Daniel and Kim Payton
Case Number: 2:2016cv00068
Filed: February 2, 2016
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Referring Judge: Gray M. Borden
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 14, 2017 61 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART as follows: 1. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is GRANTED as to all claims against Defen dants David Daniel, George Davis, Kim Payton, Sheryll Phipher, and Carole Scrushy in their individual and official capacities, and these Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. 2. As to the following claims, Defendant Kelvin Mitchell's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is GRANTED IN PART, and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Kelvin Mitchell and against Plaintiff Daniel Boyd: a. Counts 1 and 2, only to the extent asserted against Defendant Mitchell in his official capacity; b. all remaining federal claims (Counts 3-13);c. Count 14, only to the extent asserted against Defendant Mitchell in his official capacity; and d. all remaining state law claims (Counts 15-18). In all other respects, Defendant Mitchell 9;s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is DENIED. 3. On the following claims, Defendant Town of Haynevilles motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is GRANTED IN PART, and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Town of Hayneville and against Plaintiff Daniel Boyd: a. all federal claims (Counts 1-7); and b. Count 9, only as to Plaintiff's first negligence theory seeking to hold Defendant Town of Hayneville liable for Defendant Mitchell's allegedly negligent act in &q uot;the issuance and execution" of warrants for Plaintiff's arrest; and c. all remaining state law claims (Counts 10-1821). In all other espects, Defendant Town of Hayneville's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is DENIED. By s eparate order, a new trial date will be set for the remaining claims, which are as follows: 1. Against Defendant Mitchell in his individual capacity: a. Counts 1 and 2, which are consolidated into a single 1983 malicious prosecution claim arising out of the procurement of the April 17, 2014 warrant; and b. Count 14, a state law malicious prosecution claim arising out of the procurement of the April 17, 2014 warrant. 2. Against Defendant Town of Hayneville: Count 9, a state law claim for negligence on Plaintiff's theory that the mayor negligently rehired Defendant Mitchell after his suspension. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/14/2017. (kh, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Boyd v. Town of Hayneville et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Boyd
Represented By: Henry Sanders
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Town of Hayneville
Represented By: Randall C. Morgan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kelvin Mitchell
Represented By: Ricky Allen Howard
Represented By: April Willis McKay
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sheryll Phipher
Represented By: Randall C. Morgan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: George Davis
Represented By: Randall C. Morgan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carole Scrushy
Represented By: Randall C. Morgan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: David Daniel
Represented By: Robbie Alexander Hyde
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kim Payton
Represented By: Randall C. Morgan
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 [ 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?