Davis v. City of Montgomery, Alabama et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|November 10, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, Defendant' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. Defendant City of Montgomerys Motion to Dismiss the City from Counts I, II, III, and IV is GRANTED, a nd those claims against the City are DISMISSED. 2. The Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count IV is DENIED with respect to injuries sustained to Daviss ribs and is GRANTED as to a claim based on a failure to treat Daviss diabetes. 3. Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count I is DENIED as moot, since that claim is asserted only against the City. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/10/2016. (kh, )
|July 14, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is GRANTED as to all claims against the individual Defendants in their official capacities and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The Moti on to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is GRANTED as to all federal law claims against the City and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to being repled. 3. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is GRANTED as to the federal deliberate indifference claim wit hout prejudice to the claim being repled. 4. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is DENIED as to the false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and excessive force state law claims, and the state law claim for negligent failure to provide medical trea tment while Davis was in jail. 5. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) as to the state law claim for negligent training, hiring, and supervision (Count IV) is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6. The Plaintiff is given until July 22, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint, complete unto itself, in accordance with M.D. Ala. Local Rule 15.1, which more specifically pleads his theory of municipal liability, and the facts which support it, and clarifies whether the failure to train is ass erted as a separate violation of federal law. A new Amended Complaint should also more specifically plead the deliberate indifference to medical needs claim, if Davis intends to proceed on that claim. 7. In view of this Order, the Plaintiffs Motions (Doc. # 16 , 17 ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/14/2016. (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
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?