Gause v. Mullen et al
Plaintiff: Richard LeGrand Gause
Defendant: M Mullen and Unknown Beauford
Case Number: 2:2012cv01439
Filed: July 3, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Robert C Broomfield
Presiding Judge: Mark E Aspey
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER - (1) The Order to Show Cause (Doc. 41) is discharged. (2) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37 ) and Motion for Ruling (Doc. 40 ), and Plaintiff's Motion for Ti me Extension and Counsel (Doc. 43 ). (3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37 ) is granted. (4) Defendants' Motion for Ruling (Doc. 40 ) is denied. (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Time Extension and Counsel (Doc. 43 ) is denied. (6) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and terminate the action. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 9/11/13. (LAD)
July 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER - On 3/6/2013, Plaintiff filed 35 Notice of Change of Address indicating that he is no longer incarcerated. To date, plaintiff owes the full $350.00 filing fee. ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this Order, plaintiff must eit her pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a "Response" to this Order showing good cause why he cannot pay the filing fee. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with the Order to Show Cause, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. (See attached Order to Show Cause for details). Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/30/2013. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff Richard LeGrand Gause on 7/30/2013).(TLB)
January 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER denying as moot 18 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Count II is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants Mullen and Beauford must answer Count I of the First Amended Complaint. Defendants must answer the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 1/3/13.(DMT)
July 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Richard LeGrand Gause. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/15/12. (LSP)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Gause v. Mullen et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Richard LeGrand Gause
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: M Mullen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Unknown Beauford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?