Farmer v. Unknown Parties et al
| 2:2009cv02543 |
| December 4, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Mark E Aspey (PS) |
| Robert C Broomfield |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
80
ORDER the court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff's "Motion 73 for Appointment of Counsel for Appeal of Judgment" is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 5/17/2012.(KMG)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER That the unidentified Phoenix police officer (mistakenly identified as Officer #2381 in the Second Amended Complaint) is dismissed from this action;That this action is dismissed and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly; and That Plaintiff's Motion to Alter the Judgment (Doc. 68 ), is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 3/28/2012.(KMG)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn for Defendant Youhas's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 54). Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 54 ) is granted; the claim in Count I is dismissed and the claim in Coun t II is dismissed as to Defendant Youhas. Defendant Youhas is dismissed. The remaining claim is Count II against Officer #2381. As he had not yet been served, the Magistrate Judge shall issue an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff to show why the claim against Officer #2381 should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/7/2012. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Dft's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30 ). Dft's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30 ) is denied. Dft's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 38 ) will be addressed by separate order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/14/11. (SAT)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to Arpaio's Motion to Dismiss 20 and Maricopa County's Motion to Dsimiss 22 ; granting Arpaio's 20 Motion to Dismiss; granting Maricopa County's 22 Motion to Dismis s; the deliberate indifference claims against Arpaio and Maricopa County in Count II and Count III are dismissed; the remaining claims are Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim against Youhas in Count I and the deliberate indifference claim against Youhas and Officer #2381 in Count II. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/1/10.(REW)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER (Service Packet) Pla's 11 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is denied. The following Dfts and claims are dismissed: Dfts State of Arizona, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Broderick, Harris, Adams, Jane Doe #1, John Does #2-10 a nd Jane Does #2-10; The Clerk of Court must send Pla a service packet including the 10 Second Amended Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Dfts Youhas, Officer #2381, Arpaio, and Maricopa County. Pla must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 20 days of the date of filing of this Order. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 02/05/10. (ESL)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of John W. Farmer. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 1/6/10. (KMG, )
|
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
| Search for this case: Farmer v. Unknown Parties et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
