McClurg et al v. Maricopa County et al
| Elijah McClurg and Lucas McClurg |
| Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Correctional Health Services |
| 2:2009cv01684 |
| August 14, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Neil V Wake |
| Defendant |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Defendant |
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
172
ORDER that Plaintiffs' 171 Motion for New Trial, which the Court construes as a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. That Plaintiffs' 169 Motion to Conduct a Daubert Hearing is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 10/9/12.(DMT)
|
|
Filing
167
ORDER granting 145 Maricopa County's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 147 Sheriff Joseph Arpaio's Motion for Summary Judgment. Denying Plaintiffs' 155 Request for Rule 56(d) Relief. That the Clerk of Court must terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 8/27/12.(DMT)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER that Defendants Maricopa County and Maricopa County Correctional Health Services' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97) and Defendants Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Sergeant Malinchalk, Sergeant Patterson, Officer Her nandez, and Officer Hargrove's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 98) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' claims based on violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; Plaintiffs' claims based on c ruel and unusual punishment; Plaintiffs' claims based on equal protection; Plaintiffs' claims for vicarious liability/respondeat superior; Plaintiffs' state law claims; and Defendants MCCHS, the MCSO, Malinchalk, Patterson, Hernandez, Hargrove, Barker, and Lamarre are all dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs' claims alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Maricopa County and Arpaio regarding the conditions of confinement and medical care, as well as, Plaintiffs&# 039; related claims for loss of familial association and the Estates claims for pain and suffering remain. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for completing discovery shall be extended to December 1, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all dispositive motions shall be filed no later than January 2, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 9/22/2011. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER granting 76 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. Defendant Arpaio's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings[ 70], which addresses Plaintiffs' original Complaint, is DENIED with leave to refile. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 9/30/10.(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.
