Rawls v. Maricopa County, et al
| Vernon Rawls |
| Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Unknown Murillo, Unknown Solla and Unknown Parties |
| 2:2010cv00231 |
| February 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| G Murray Snow |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
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
27
ORDER that the County's 22 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. It is further ordered that Pla's 25 Request for Dismissal with Prejudice of his § 1983 claim against Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the County is denied as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 07/23/10.(ESL)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER Defendant Murillo's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 15 is DENIED. Maricopa County's and Joseph Arpaio's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 5 is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and DENIED as to his state-law claim for negligence. Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the County Defendants is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff will have thirty days (30) or until July 22, 2010, to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall also file with the Court and the County Defendants a redline version indicating all changes from the Complaint and the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/22/10.(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.
