Simpson v. Little Rock, City of et al
Plaintiff: Cedrick Simpson, Sr
Defendant: Little Rock, City of, Greg Siegler, Steve Moore, M Durham and Stuart Thomas
Case Number: 4:2017cv00461
Filed: July 17, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office: Little Rock Office
County: Pulaski
Presiding Judge: D. P. Marshall
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
January 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 66 JUDGMENT: Simpson's complaint and amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/2/2020. (jak)
September 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER granting 59 Motion. Siegler's reply is due by 9/24/2019. A Second Amended Final Scheduling Order setting the trial for 4/6/2020 will issue. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/10/2019. (jak)
August 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER: The Court appreciates Simpson's 54 Response. If he has not done so already, Siegler must mail Simpson copies of the summary judgment papers, No. 50 - 52 . Simpson's deadline to respond is extended to 8/26/2019. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/6/2019. (jak)
August 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER: If Simpson doesn't respond by 8/14/2019 to the pending 50 Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will consider the motion on the current papers. If he responds, Simpson must explain why his filing is late. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/2/2019. (jak)
April 3, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER: The Court notes Simpson's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, No. 41 . Simpson must file a substituted Exhibit A by 4/12/2019. Siegler's time to respond to the motion is extended to 4/19/2019. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/3/2019. (jak)
March 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER: Simpson's unapproved 39 Amended Complaint is stricken without prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/12/2019. (jak)
January 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER partly granting and partly denying without prejudice 9 and 20 Motions to dismiss. The failure-to-intervene claim is dismissed with prejudice. The conspiracy claim goes forward. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/31/2018. (jak)
December 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER granting 22 Motion. Simpson's response due by 12/15/2017. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/1/2017. (jak)
November 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER granting 11 Motion to set aside Clerk's default. The 8 Clerk's Default is vacated. 13 Motion to strike is denied. Siegler is entitled to defendant against Simpson's claims on the merits. Simpson must therefore respond to Siegler's motion to dismiss by 12/1/2017. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/17/2017. (jak)
September 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER directing the Clerk to issue a summons for Greg Siegler, 4 , and directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on Siegler without prepayment of fees, costs, or security. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/8/2017. (jak)
August 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Simpson has two claims left against Siegler: failure to intervene and conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights. Simpson's other claims are all dismissed with prejudice. Simpson must file (under seal) current address information for Siegler by 9/25/2017. The Court needs that information to get a summons issued and the suit papers served by the U.S. Marshal. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/25/2017. (jak)
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 Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Simpson v. Little Rock, City of 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: Cedrick Simpson, Sr
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: Little Rock, City 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: Greg Siegler
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: Steve Moore
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: M Durham
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: Stuart Thomas
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?