Sullivan v. Phoenix, City of et al
| Erin Sullivan |
| Unknown Garrett, Matthew Lowe, Unknown Lowe, Unknown Parties, Phoenix, City of, Bryan Welsh, Unknown Welsh, Glendale, City of, Dave Kulaga, Unknown Kulaga and Kevin Garrett |
| 2:2011cv01427 |
| July 18, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| David G Campbell |
| David K Duncan |
| Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
47
ORDER that the 40 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Duncan is accepted and adopted in part. The City of Phoenix and Bryan Welsh's 19 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a) the mo tion is granted as to the federal and state claims against the City of Phoenix and Officer Welsh that relate to the use of the K-9; b) the motion is denied as to the federal and state claims against the City of Phoenix and Officer Welch that relate to use of pepper spray. Case management deadlines are as set forth in the 40 Order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/2012. (LFIG)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER Defendants City of Phoenix, City of Glendale, Welsh, Kulaga, Garrett, and Lowe must answer the Complaint. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/25/11. (TLJ)
|
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.
