Coronel v. Penzone et al
Plaintiff: Daniel R Coronel
Defendant: Paul Penzone, Maricopa, County of and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Case Number: 2:2021cv02122
Filed: December 13, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: James F Metcalf (PS)
Referring Judge: Douglas L Rayes
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 9, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER - The Court takes no action as to Plaintiff's Supplement (Doc. #5 ). This case must remain closed. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/9/22. (DXD)
February 3, 2022 Filing 4 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - Pursuant to the Court's order filed December 16, 2021, Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (DXD)
January 7, 2022 Filing 5 SUPPLEMENT Count 1 Attachment re: #1 Notice of Removal by Plaintiff Daniel R Coronel (7 pages). (DXD)
December 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER - (1) The Complaint (Doc. #1 -3) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order. (2) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. (3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. See order for details. Signed by Judge Douglas L. Rayes on 12/16/21. (NKS)
December 13, 2021 Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAC)
December 13, 2021 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2021-018243. Filing fee received: $402.00, receipt number 0970-20151174 filed by Paul Penzone. (Critz, Anna) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit)(BAC)

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: Coronel v. Penzone 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: Daniel R Coronel
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: Paul Penzone
Represented By: Anna Griffin Critz
Represented By: Maxine S Mak
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: Maricopa, County of
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: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
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?