Hughes v. Arpaio et al
| Cory Allen Hughes |
| Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Unknown Freidman, Maricopa County Jail and Correctional Health Services |
| 2:2012cv00697 |
| April 2, 2012 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Lawrence O Anderson (PS) |
| G Murray Snow |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
69
ORDER That the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant Dr. Friedman's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63) and Motion for Ruling (Doc. 68). FURTHER ORDERED granting 63 Defendant Dr. Friedman's Motion to Dismiss; the Complai nt is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 68 Defendant Dr. Friedman's Motion for Ruling. The Clerk of Court must terminate the action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/7/13.(MAP)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant's 24 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's 35 Motion for the Court to Rule of Plaintiff's Response. Plaintiff's 35 Motion for the Court to Rule on Plaintiff's Response is granted. Defendant's 24 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/30/2013.(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER that Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED. ORDERED that the parties must use the above caption until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 3/18/2013.(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Time Extension for Service Packet and Request for a New Service Packet, doc. 20, is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Release of Medical Files, doc. 17, is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 1/8/13. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline and extending the deadline for Plaintiff to return the service packet to the Clerk of Court for an additional 21 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/5/12.(SJF)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER that Plaintiff's 7 MOTION is denied as moot. Defendants Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County Jail Security/Hospital Scheduling Staff, and Correctional Health Services are dismissed without prejudice. Defend ant Friedman must answer the Complaint. The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the 1 Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant Friedman. Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/21/2012. (See attached PDF for complete details.)(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, granting Plaintiff's 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; within 30 days, Plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a Response as described in this order; if Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or file a Response to this Order within 30 days, the Clerk must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/23/12. (REW)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
