Johnson et al v. Prescott, City of et al
| Eugene Johnson and Jimmie Johnson |
| Prescott, City of and Unknown Parties |
| 3:2022cv08180 |
| October 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Dominic W Lanza |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER: Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will issue a scheduling order after receiving the parties' Rule 26(f) report. After reviewing the Rule 26(f) report, the Court will set a case management conference if meeting with the parties appears necessary or helpful. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed no later than December 27, 2022 [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 11/29/22. (MAW)
|
| Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Prescott, City of.(Crown, Larry) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the parties' joint motion (Doc. #7 ) is granted. The deadline for Defendant to respond to the complaint is extended to November 23, 2022. Ordered by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 10/26/22. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW)
|
| Filing 7 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Plaintiffs and by Prescott, City of. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Crown, Larry) |
|
Filing 6
PRELIMINARY ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve a copy of this Order on Defendant(s) and file a notice of service with the Clerk of Court; 2. That, unless the Court orders otherwise, on January 4, 2023, the Clerk of Court shall terminate without further notice any Defendant in this action that has not been served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 10/13/22. (MAW)
|
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Christina Smedley on behalf of Plaintiffs Eugene Johnson, Jimmie Johnson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
| Filing 5 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Eugene Johnson, Jimmie Johnson: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint and Civil cover sheet upon Defendant City of Prescott on 10/06/2022. (Chami, David) |
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Haytham Faraj on behalf of Plaintiffs Eugene Johnson, Jimmie Johnson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Prescott, City of. (MYE). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number AAZDC-21167196. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Dominic W Lanza. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-22-8180-PCT-DWL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MYE) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Eugene Johnson, Jimmie Johnson. (Chami, David) (MYE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number AAZDC-21167196 filed by Eugene Johnson, Jimmie Johnson. (Chami, David) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MYE) |
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 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.
