Franklin v. Franklin County Arkansas et al
| Clayton Franklin |
| Franklin County Arkansas, Ozark Arkansas, City of, Franklin County Sheriff's Department, Anthony Boen, Nicholas James, Nathan Griffith, Joseph Griffith and James Taylor Molton |
| 2:2017cv02016 |
| January 25, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas |
| Fort Smith Office |
| Franklin |
| P. K. Holmes |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 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
94
JUDGMENT entered as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on May 28, 2020. (hnc)
|
|
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER granting 43 County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against all County Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Further, Granting in part and Denying in part 53 City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Ozark, Arkansas are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, Plaintiff's claim against Nathan Griffith and Joseph Griffith for deliberate indifference to a significant medical need is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims against Nathan Griffith and Joseph Griffith for excessive force, battery, and Plaintiff's wrongful death claim brought for Franklin's beneficiaries, remain pending. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on April 19, 2019. (mjm)
|
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 Western 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.
