Farr v. Davis et al
| Joan E. Farr |
| Daryl Davis, Dennis Moon, DeAnn Coote, John Patrick Hall and Huckleberry Homeowners Association |
| 2:2016cv02180 |
| March 23, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Kansas City Office |
| Sedgwick |
| Kenneth G. Gale |
| Carlos Murguia |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
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
145
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 142 Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 03/15/2018. (tvn)
|
|
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 136 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 02/14/2018. (tvn)
|
|
Filing
135
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 119 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 120 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 126 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike ; denying 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Evidence. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 01/25/2018. (tvn)
|
|
Filing
113
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 107 Motion for Recusal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections to Memorandums and Orders Filed August 4 & 8, 2017 (Docs. 105 & 106) (Doc. 108) is denied. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 8/31/17. (kao)
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 94 Motion to Compel; denying 104 Motion for Hearing/Motion for Sanctions/Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 8/8/17. (df)
|
|
Filing
105
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 75 Motion to Reconsider; denying 82 Objections/Motion for Review/Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 8/4/2017. Mailed to pro se party Joan E. Farr by regular mail. (hl)
|
|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration and granting 84 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 7/26/17. Mailed to pro se party Joan E. Farr by regular mail. (hw)
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 83 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 5/23/17. (df)
|
|
Filing
78
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 77 Motion Requesting Court Acknowledgement of Lis Pendens. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on May 10, 2017.(Gale, Kenneth) (Main Document 78 replaced on 5/10/2017) (aa).
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER adopting in full the Magistrate Judge's 68 Report and Recommendations. Further, denying Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Leave to Join Additional Defendants. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 05/04/2017. (mg)
|
|
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Stipulate; denying 45 Motion to Join Additional Party as Plaintiff; denying 48 Motion for Rule 35 Mental Evaluation. (Note: This Order also contains the undersigned Ma gistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation to the District Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Join Additional Defendants 46 . This document is being docketed twice on the Court's electronic docketing system for administrative/tracking purposes.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 4/6/17. (df)
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Judge Gale (Doc. 38) is adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Amend (Doc. 36) is denied. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 3/27/2017. Mailed to pro se party Joan E. Farr by regular mail. (hl)
|
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 Kansas 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.
