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 U.S.C. § 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
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?