K.J.C. v. The City of Montgomery et al
| K.J.C. |
| The City of Montgomery, Ernest N. Finley, Jr., W.B. Gaskin and Morris Leon Williams, Jr. |
| 2:2017cv00091 |
| February 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Charles S. Coody |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
64
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Based on the above reasoning, the Court orders as follows: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48 ) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Defer the Motion for Summary Judgment and Extension of T ime to Complete Discovery (Doc. 54 ) is DENIED. 3. The trial and pre-trial conference in this matter are CANCELLED. 4. In light of the Clerk's entry of default against Defendant Williams (Doc. 57 ), Plaintiff may file a motion for default judg ment as explained in this opinion. If she chooses to pursue defaultagainst Williams, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file her motion for default judgment on or before November 15, 2019. 5. A nonjury evidentiary hearing is set for November 22, 2019 at 8:30am in Courtroom 2E at which the Court will hear evidence, if any, on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for entry of a default judgment and compensatory and punitive damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 10A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 2688 (4th ed. 2019 ). If Plaintiff wants the Court to consider any documentary evidence, that evidence should be filed either under seal or through the ECF system before the evidentiary hearing. If any Defendant wants to present evidence at the hearing, they should not ify Plaintiff and the Court on or before November 19, 2019. The Court anticipates that the hearing will take approximately one hour. The parties should inform the Court by calling chambers if the hearing needs to be longer. 6. This case is not closed . Signed by Honorable Judge Andrew L. Brasher on 10/7/2019. (furn: dh, calendar) (term: Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/22/2019; Jury Trial set for 01/06/2020; Jury Selection set for 01/06/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(kh, )
|
|
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 8 ) is ADOPTED as modified by this Order. 2. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. # 26 ) are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiffs requests for leave to amend her Amended Complaint (Doc. # 26 , at 6, 7) are DENIED. 4. Defendants' first motion to dismiss (Doc. # 7 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. Defendants' second motion to dismiss (Doc. # 17 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically , the motion is: A. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's 1983 claim against the City, Chief Finley, and Captain Gaskin based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count I); B. GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs claims against Chief Finley and C aptain Gaskin in their official capacities, which are DISMISSED as duplicative of the claims against the City; and C. GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's 1983 claims based on violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fou rteenth Amendment (Counts Two and Three) and her state law claim of supervisory and municipal liability (Count VII), which are DISMISSED. 6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/27/2018. (kh, )
|
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 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.
