Harper #317663 v. Ryan et al
Plaintiff: Gary Jerome Harper
Defendant: Charles L Ryan and Corizon Health Services
Case Number: 2:2018cv00298
Filed: January 29, 2018
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Presiding Judge: David K Duncan
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
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
February 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER - (1) This order shall be read personally by (a) ADC Director David Shinn, (b) the highest official of Corizon responsible for the operations to which Plaintiff has been subjected, (c) the Arizona Attorney General, and (d) the Centurion Stat ewide Medical Director. Defendant shall file a certification within 30 days that this order has been read personally by each of these individuals. (2) The Court will seek to identify counsel willing to represent Plaintiff on a pro bono basis thr oughout the remainder of this case. Defendants are directed to have no settlement discussions with Plaintiff until counsel has appeared on his behalf. (3) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61 .) (4) Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61 ) is denied. (5) David Shinn is substituted as Defendant for Plaintiffs official capacity claim for injunctive relief. (6) The remaining claims are the Eighth Amendment claim for damages against Corizon; the Eighth Amendment claim for damages against Ryan in his individual capacity; and the Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Shinn in his official capacity. (7) This action is referred to Magistrate Ju dge Michael T. Morrissey to conduct a settlement conference on Plaintiff s remaining claims. The Court requests that Judge Morrissey not schedule the conference until after counsel has appeared in this case for Plaintiff. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2020. (LAD)
December 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 43 Motion to Amend. See document for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah M Fine on 12/18/18. (MSA)
September 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ORDER - Plaintiff's 26 "Motion to Amend Document 23" is denied. Plaintiff's 3 "Motion for Emergency Injunction Against the DefendantsCharles L. Ryan and Corizon Health Services John Does" is denied. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 09/10/18. (GMP)
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: Harper #317663 v. Ryan 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: Gary Jerome Harper
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: Charles L Ryan
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: Corizon 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 [ 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?