Tucker v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
| Steven Lee Tucker |
| Arizona Department of Corrections, Don Verrett, Nikki Studer, Pam Jensen, John March, Unknown Ratkevick, Unknown Zormier, Maureen Rodriguez, Unknown Parties, Charles Ryan and Arizona, State of |
| 4:2017cv00192 |
| April 28, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pima |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
150
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED Tucker's 123 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants' 129 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary judgment is awarded in favor of Defendants and against Tucker on the basis of qualified imm unity. Summary judgment is awarded in favor of Defendants Studer and Jensen and against Tucker on the basis of absolute immunity. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 9/14/22. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER GRANTING 72 Request for Leave of the Court to File a Third Amended Complaint. Tucker shall file the Third Amended Complaint on or before 6/11/21. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 5/26/21. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 20 ) is GRANTED. Counts One through Nine, Twenty-Seven, and Twenty-Eight against the State, ADC, and Ryan, along with Counts Nine through Twenty-Six against individually named de fendants, are DISMISSED. ADC and the claims against it are DISMISSED. Counts One through Eight against the State, ADOC, and Ryan are DISMISSED. Counts One through Eight are DISMISSED as being banned by the statute of limitations. Counts Nine, Eight een and Nineteen are DISMISSED as non-cognizable claims. Counts Ten through Seventeen and Twenty through Twenty- Six are DISMISSED for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted. Counts Twenty-Seven and Twenty-Eight are DISMISSED for f ailing to allege a causal link between Defendant and the claimed violations. The claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED. The SAC and this action are DISMISSED. The Motion to Conduct Discovery Prior to the Time Specified in the Rule 26(d) and Requ est Leave of the Court to Extend the Time to Serve Unknown Defendant John Doe and Dismiss Defendants Jane Does (1-10) without Prejudice (Doc. 27 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Motion for Leave of the Court to Attach Audio Recording as an Exhibit to Pla intiff's Response to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29 ) is DENIED. The Request Leave of the Court for an Order to extend Deadline to File Response to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34 ) is DENIED. The Motio n for Ruling on State Defendants' Sovereign Immunity Defense (Doc. 36 ) is GRANTED to the extent the Court herein rules on State Defendants' Sovereign Immunity Defense. The Motion to Deem Plaintiffs' Motion for Ruling as Response t o Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Extend Time to Reply if Plaintiffs' Motion Deemed a Response; Motion for Plaintiffs to Comply with Court Rules (Doc. 38 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 6/6/2018. (MFR)
|
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.
