Wilson v. Arpaio et al

Plaintiff: Demetrius Antwan Wilson
Defendant: Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Correctional Health Services and Unknown Party
Case Number: 2:2014cv01613
Filed: July 17, 2014
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Referring Judge: Mark E Aspey (PS)
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
December 27, 2016 239 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 238 ) is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 237 ) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/27/16. (KGM)
August 19, 2016 220 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's appeal, (Doc. 219 ), is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's August 8, 2016 Order, (Doc. 198 ), is AFFIRMED. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/18/2016. (KMG)
June 16, 2016 184 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn only with respect to Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 175 , 180 , 183 ), and Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling on Entire Case, (Doc. 182 ), and th at all other matters must remain with the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 150 ), is ACCEPTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, (Doc. 143 ), is GRANTED . FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Officer Watzek A8993 and Provider Erika Saretsky, PA are DISMISSED, from this action with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Count Two of the TAC is DISMISSED, without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Count Twelve of the TAC is DISMISSED,without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the claims for damages against Defendants Medical Director Jeffrey Alvarez, Medical Pamela Brooks, Medical Supervisor Teressa DeMille, and External Referees B. Piirinen and Scott Frye are DISM ISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 146 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 147 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File anAmended Complaint, (Doc. 175 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 180 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling on Entire Case, (Doc. 182 ), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 183 ), is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/15/2016. (KMG)
November 2, 2015 133 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 109 Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/30/2015.(TLB)
August 11, 2015 93 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 67 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ; FURTHER ORDERED denying 68 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ; FURTHER ORDERED denying 73 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/11/2015.(TLB)
June 30, 2015 64 Opinion or Order of the Court *ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37 ) is ACCEPTED AS MODIFIED above. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Amend (Doc. 23 ) is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that Counts One, Three, Five, Eight, Te n, Eleven, Thirteen, Fifteen, and Seventeen are dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County Correctional Health Services is dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the claims for damages against Defendants "J ohn Doe 2," "John Doe 4," "John Doe 5," B. Piirinen, and Scott Frye are dismissed with prejudice (claims for injunctive relief remain.) FURTHER ORDERED that Count Four is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t Plaintiff be allowed to participate in discovery to determine the identities of Defendants "[M]edical [N]urse [M]ary," "Officer A8845," John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 15, John Doe 16, John Doe 17, and thereafter be allowed to attempt service on these Defendants. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/29/2015. (KMG) *Modified to correct text on 6/30/2015 (KMG).

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: Wilson v. Arpaio et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joseph M Arpaio
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Maricopa County Correctional Health Services
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Unknown Party
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Demetrius Antwan Wilson
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 [ 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?