Coleman v. Maricopa Integrated Health System et al
| Herb Coleman |
| Virginia Martinez, Beverly Smith, Unknown Parties, Susan Myers, Maricopa Integrated Health System and Dawn Smith |
| 2:2010cv02398 |
| November 5, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Neil V Wake |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
18
ORDER granting 17 Defendants Maricopa Integrated Health System, Susan Myers, Virginia Martinez, Beverly Smith, and Daunn Smith's Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of 7 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/16/11.(LSP)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER that Plaintiff's 3 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is granted; that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with permission to file an amended complaint by 01/03/11; that if Plaintiff ele cts not to file an amended complaint by 01/03/11, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of this Court; that if Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the complaint may not be served until and unless the court screens the amended complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/03/10. (ESL)
|
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.
