Zolnierz v. Arpaio et al
| Douglas John Zolnierz |
| Todd Everett, Joseph M Arpaio, Betty Adams, R Venkatabalaji, Sudha D Roa, Jebbie Whiteside and Korey Eggert |
| 2:2011cv00146 |
| January 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| G Murray Snow |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
250
ORDER granting Dr. Rao's 185 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Dr. Rao in this matter and Zolnierz shall take nothing. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/21/13. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER - 1. Zolnierz's Motion (Doc. 210) is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Jack Vincent and Christine Hammerle are hereby appointed as guardians ad litem for Zolnierz in this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Vincent and Ms. Hammerle at Perkins Coie LLP, 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000, P.O. Box 400, Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400. 3. Dr. Roa's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 160) is DENIED. 4. Zolnierz's Motion to Appoint Expert (Doc. 108), Mot ion to Defer Summary Judgment (Doc. 110), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 182), Motion for In Camera Inspection Order (Doc. 191), Motion to Compel (Doc. 192), Motion to Strike (Doc. 194), and Motion for Ruling (Doc. 201), and two Motions for Extension of Time to File Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment (Docs. 202, 204) are denied without prejudice. 5. Zolnierz shall have until 5:00 P.M. on February 25, 2013 to file responsive memoranda to Dr. Roa's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 185). Dr. Roa shall have until 5:00 P.M. on March 14, 2013 to file a reply memorandum. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/23/13. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
209
ORDER re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Competency Hearing set for 1/18/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge G Murray Snow. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Andrew Jacobs of Snell & Wilmer appear telephonically at the hearing for purposes of potentially securing counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Jacobs at One South Church Avenue, Suite 1500, Tucson, AZ 85701-1630. Mr. Jacobs is directed to call chambers at (602) 322-7650 five minutes before the scheduled hearing. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/7/13. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
206
ORDER denying 97 Motion for Leave to Appeal; denying 97 Motion to Stay; denying 97 Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 104 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 104 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 104 Motion for Sanc tions; denying 105 Motion to Vacate ; denying as moot 111 Motion to Strike ; denying 114 Motion for Leave to Appeal; denying as moot 133 Motion to provide plaintiff with various documents; denying as moot 138 Motion for Protective Ord er; denying 166 Motion for Recusal ; denying 166 Motion to Reassign Case ; denying 179 Motion for Sanctions; denying 180 Motion for Certification; denying 183 Motion to waive Transcript Order Fees ; denying 188 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 189 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline ; denying 190 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/4/12.(DMT)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Eggert and Everett's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39), Defendant Arpaios Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41), and Defendant Venkatabalaji's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 55) is DENIED. Defendant Dr. Sudha D. Roa remains a Defendant in this case. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/25/12.(LAD)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 38 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/17/11.(LAD)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion and directing the US Marshal's Service to effect service of process in this matter on the remaining Defendants, Arpaio, Rao, Venkatabalaji, Adams, Eggert and Everett; directing the Clerk to send by mail a service packet to Plaintiff; Plaintiff is directed to promptly fill out and return the service packet, including all pertinent information for service, to the Clerk; the Clerk shall then immediately submit the service packet to the US Marshal along with a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/6/11. (REW)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall be responsible for service by waiver or of the Summons and Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Plaintiff'sComplaint again st Defendants Arpaio, Brock, Kunasek, Stapley, Wilcox, Wilson, Adams and Venkatabalaji is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, with leave to file an amended complaint by March 11, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to fi le an amended complaint by March 11, 2011, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss Defendants Arpaio, Brock, Kunasek, Stapley, Wilcox, Wilson, Adams and Venkatabalaji from this action without further Order of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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). (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 2/9/11.(LAD)
|
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.
