Lloyd v. Arpiao et al
| Mark Gunn Lloyd |
| Joseph M Arpiao, Barron, Olague and Jackie |
| 2:2007cv02638 |
| December 31, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Mark E Aspey |
| Unassigned - CIV |
| Prisoner - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
181
ORDER that Plaintiff's remaining damages claim is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 169 Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/9/11.(LSP)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90 . Denying without prejudice 56 Motion to Amend complaint; denying 64 Motion to Dismiss Case. That Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file a proposed amended complaint containing the factual allegations and legal causes of action with regard to each Defendant no later than 11/21/08. (see order for details). Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/21/08. (DMT, )
|
|
Filing
90
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct re First Amended Complaint : Recommending that motion be denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey on 9/4/08. (DMT, )
|
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 Arizona 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.
