Sharp v. Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL et al (MAG+)
| Keith L. Sharp |
| Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL, City of Montgomery, Alabama and City Council, City of Montgomery, AL |
| 2:2022cv00127 |
| March 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Stephen Michael Doyle |
| R Austin Huffaker |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Return receipt card showing service as to #12 Order, signed by B Jackson for Keith L. Sharp, served on 4/20/2022. (am, ) |
Filing 12
ORDER: it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, if any there be, why the #9 Motion should not be granted; Plaintiff shall file a response to the #9 Motion on or before 5/13/2022; Defendants may file a reply on or before 5/20/2022. Signed by Honorable Judge Stephen Michael Doyle on 4/15/2022 (mailed CMRRR to plf). (es, ) Modified on 4/18/2022 to add notation of CMRRR (es, ).
|
| Filing 11 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by City Council, City of Montgomery, AL, City of Montgomery, Alabama, Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL re #10 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement,. (Rodgers, Karen) |
| Filing 10 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL, City of Montgomery, Alabama, & City Council, City of Montgomery, AL; Corporate Disclosures due by 4/25/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order & Sample)(am, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by City Council, City of Montgomery, AL, Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL. (Rodgers, Karen) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by City of Montgomery, Alabama.(Rodgers, Karen) |
| Filing 7 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons, #1 Complaint signed by Rita Thomas for Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL served on 3/16/2022, answer due 4/6/2022. (es, ) |
| Filing 6 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons, #1 Complaint signed by C-19 for City of Montgomery, Alabama served on 3/17/2022, answer due 4/7/2022. (es, ) |
| Filing 5 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons, #1 Complaint signed by C-19 City Council for City Council, City of Montgomery, AL served on 3/16/2022, answer due 4/6/2022. (es, ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: It is ORDERED that the above-styled action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 3/15/2022. (am, )
|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to City Council, City of Montgomery, AL, City of Montgomery, Alabama, Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL and mailed CMRRR w/ #1 Complaint. (am, ) |
| Filing 2 Conflict Disclosure Statement by Keith L. Sharp.(am, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City Council, City of Montgomery, AL, City of Montgomery, Alabama, Inspections Department, City of Montgomery, AL, filed by Keith L. Sharp. (Filing fee $402.00 receipt number 4602066249.) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Receipt)(am, ) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Keith L. Sharp. (NO PDF - See doc #1 ) (am, ) |
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 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.
