Mason #240482 v. Ryan et al
Nathan Sterling Mason |
Charles L Ryan, Joshua Baese, Corizon Health Incorporated and Unknown Thude |
3:2017cv08098 |
May 25, 2017 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Prescott Division Office |
Maricopa |
Michelle H Burns (PS) |
David G Campbell |
Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 388 ORDER - The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 303 ), and the Motion is denied. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 4/24/19. (DXD) |
Filing 354 ORDER -The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Mason's 239 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Defendants' 257 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Mason's 310 Motion to Compel. Mason's 310 Mot ion to Compel is denied. Mason's 239 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied. Defendants' 257 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 3/27/19. (MSA) |
Filing 336 ORDER- The reference is withdrawn as to Defendants Ryan and Baese's 225 Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's [324} Motion for Court Order. Plaintiff's 324 Motion for Court Order is denied. Plaintiff's 236 r equest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendants Ryan and Baese's 225 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) the Motion is gr anted as to the official capacity claim against Ryan in Counts One and Two; and (b) the Motion is otherwise denied. Within 45 days from the date of this Order, the parties may file new summary judgment motions as to the remaining individual capacity claims against Ryan and Baese in Counts One and Two. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 3/4/19. (MSA) |
Filing 193 ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Preliminary Injunction as follows: (a) Defendant Corizon must promptly schedule Plaintiff to see pain management specialist Brian Page on an urgent basis. As soon as this appointment is made, D efendant Corizon must file a Notice with the Court indicating the week in which Plaintiff is scheduled to see Dr. Page. (b) Defendant Corizon must provide the treatment and medication recommended and/or prescribed by Dr. Page, including any follow-up care. (c) Defendant Corizon must promptly schedule Plaintiff to see Dr. Waldrip or other orthopedic specialist. As soon as this appointment is made, Defendant Corizon must file a Notice with the Court indicating the week in which Plaintiff is schedu led to see the orthopedic specialist. (2) This relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the harm, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). (3) Plaintiff is not required to post bond. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/8/18. (LAD) |
Filing 167 ORDER - The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's 129 Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiff's 152 Motion to Strike. Plaintiff's 129 Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is d enied. Plaintiff's 152 Motion to Strike is denied. Defendants must provide Plaintiff access to the 18 seized documentsin unredacted formfor his review pursuant to arrangements made with CO Wade or other appropriate officer. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/19/2018. (ATD) |
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.