Blankenship v. Shinn et al
Mark A. Blankenship |
D. Shinn, Mr. Shelko and John Does 1-10 |
1:2014cv00168 |
April 7, 2014 |
US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
Hawaii Office |
Honolulu |
LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI |
BARRY M. KURREN |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 122 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re 120 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/08/2016. -- Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on March 28, 2016, is HEREBY DENIED. The Co urt DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to enter final judgment and close this case. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry |
Filing 119 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEE SHELLKO'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT re 113 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 03/15/2016. Defendant Lee Shellko's Motion to Dismiss Se cond Amended Complaint, filed on January 27,2016, is HEREBY GRANTED, and the Third Amended Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. There being no remaining claims in this case, the Court DIRECTS the Clerks Office to close this case on April 26, 2016, unless Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration of this Order by April 19, 2016. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry |
Filing 97 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS DAVID SHINN AND LEE SHELLKO 62 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 09/30/2015. Defendants' ; Motion for Dismissal or Summary Judgment of Defendants David Shinn and Lee Shellko, filed March 24, 2015, is HEREBY GRANTED. Specifically, Plaintiff's claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, ADA, and § 504 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Pla intiffs Eight Amendment claim against Defendant Shinn is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Shellko is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff does wish to amend this claim, he must file a second amended complaint by November 16, 2015. Plaintiff's second amended complaint must include all of the allegations that his claim is based upon, even if he previously presented these allegations in prior versions of the complaint.Plainti ff cannot incorporate any part of the prior versions of the complaint into the second amended complaint by merely referencing the earlier two documents. This Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that: if he fails to file his second amended complaint by November 16, 2015; or, if the second amended complaint fails to cure the defects identified in this Order, this Court will dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPartic ipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on October 1, 2015 |
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 Hawaii 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.