Barksdale v. Connaghan et al
| Steven Barksdale |
| Genie Connaghan, Patricia Panek and Avalon Correctional Services |
| 1:2010cv02491 |
| October 13, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Logan |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
58
ORDER Adopting and Affirming 57 Report and Recommendations: 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the claims against Defendant Connaghan are dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Patricia Panek is dismissed without prejudice, and this case is closed. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/4/13.(dkals, )
|
|
Filing
47
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/3/2011. Denying 44 Motion for Order. Denying 43 Motion for Order. Status Conference set for 11/4/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. (FTR: Emily Seamon) (eseam)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTS AND AFFIRMS 39 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge; granting 15 Defendant Avalons Motion to Quash; granting 22 Defendant Connaghans Motion to Dismiss respect to Plaintiff Barksdales claim against Defend ant Connaghan in her official capacity, and his claim for compensatory damages. As these claims cannot be cured through amendment of the Complaint, these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Connaghans Motion is also GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs Eight Amendment claim against Defendant Connaghan, in her individual capacity. As this claim could potentially be cured by further amendment, this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, Defendant Connaghans Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Barksdales claim for retaliation; by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/18/2011.(erv, )
|
|
Filing
34
Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 4/22/2011. It was ORDERED: Plaintiffs Motion for Extension for Filing 32 is GRANTED. Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss 22 and Defendant Avalon Corre ctional Services, d/b/a Phoenix Center's Motion to Quash Service 15 no later than May 16, 2011; Defendant Avalon Correctional Services to send a copy of Defendant Avalon Correctional Services, d/b/a Phoenix Center's Motion to Quash Service 15 by overnight mail to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 25 is DENIED. (FTR: L. Galera) (lag)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER - (1) Defendant Connaghan shall re-mail a copy of the Motion to Dismiss, doc # 22 to Mr. Barksdale at his current address; (2) At the Preliminary Scheduling Conference that will be held on 3/30/2011 at 10:00 a.m., the court will set a new deadline for Mr. Barksdale to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 3/15/2011. (cbscd)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER Granting Service by United States Marshal by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/2/10. (mnf2, )
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to A District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Claims One and Two are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Claim Three, as asserted against Defendants, is ordered drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer for Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 11/23/2010. (sah, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
