Kemp v. Arpaio et al
| James L Kemp |
| Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Parties, Maricopa, County of, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Correctional Health Services, Jeffrey Alvarez, William G Montgomery, Rachel Reams, Jennifer Carper, James Logan and Jesus Acosta |
| 2:2015cv01784 |
| September 8, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Eileen S Willett (PS) |
| Paul G Rosenblatt |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
115
ORDER: Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 97 is accepted and adopted in part and is rejected in part as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis 93 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Rule 9(a)(2) Mo tion to Stay Substitution of Arpaio with Paul Penzone 88 is granted and that Sheriff Paul Penzone is substituted for defendant Arpaio only in his official capacity pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d), and that defendant Arpaio shall remain a defendant in this action in his personal capacity. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/30/2017. (REK)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER (Service Packet): The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 77 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Defendants Garner, Brown, and Arpaio shall answer the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim pertaining to the alleged September 8, 2014 assault in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant Feraru shall answer Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Arpaio, Tenny, McKay, Fisk, and Chavira shall answer the First Amendment retaliation claim i n Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint. Dfendants San Martin and Anders shall answer Count Eight of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Steinhauser, Burke, Guta,Bernal-Fulford, and Baerg shall answer Count Eleven of the Second Amended Comp laint regarding alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment medical claims arising from incidents dated October 18, 2013, September 9, 2014, and March 13, 2015. Defendants Arpaio, Alvarez, Tenny, and McKay shall answer Count Sixteen of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Maricopa County, Montgomery, Rada, Najera, Klages, Rubio, Shugart-LBJ-McKay Team, Flannery, Carper, Acosta, Flaggman, Balaji, Wade, Bretado, Cooper, Odom, Logan, Cruz, Lee, Angry, Hughes, Bruner, Sminch, and Grange are dismi ssed without prejudice from this action. The Clerk of Court shall send the plaintiff a service packet including the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 76 ), this Order, and a copy of the Marshal's Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for defendants Baerg, Garner, McKay, Fisk, Chavira, Alvarez, Brown, Steinhauser, and Burke. The plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days o f the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide service of process if the plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. The following motions are denied as moot: (i) Defendants Arpaio and Tenny's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53 ), which concerns the First Amended Complaint; (ii) Defendant Brendon Baerg's 12(B)(5) Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. 63 ); and (iii) the plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service on Defendant Brendon Baerg (Doc. 68 ). See document for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/21/2017. (REK)
|
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.
