Loggins (ID 63088) et al v. Norwood et al
| Kevin D. Loggins and Elizabeth M. Wilson |
| Joseph Norwood, Dan Schnurr, Shannon Meyer and (fnu) Doe |
| 5:2018cv03016 |
| January 25, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Topeka Office |
| Reno |
| Sam A. Crow |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 74 ) is denied. Plaintiff must pay the remainder of his $505 appellate filing fee to the Clerk of U.S. District Court if he wishes to proceed with his appeal, consistent with the court's March 12, 2020 Order. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 03/30/20. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins, Sr. by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 70 ) is granted. The court's March 4, 2020 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 69 ) is vacated. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 67 ) is denied. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 03/12/20. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins, Sr. by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43 ) is granted. Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 45 ) and plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Doc. 38 ) are denied as m oot. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41 ), Motion for Correction of Judicial Notice and Request for Leave (Doc. 58 ), and Motion for Joinder (Doc. 59 ) are denied. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 01/15/20. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins, Sr. by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER ENTERED: Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time 32 is granted. Defendants Joseph Norwood, Shannon Meyer and Dan Schnurr shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by April 3, 2019. Plaintiff's Motion to Chan ge Venue 28 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Impeach the Judgment of Conviction for the Charge of Aggravated Sexual Battery in Case No. 95CR1859 29 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate 30 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 03/06/19. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins, Sr. by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff Elizabeth Wilson should show cause by November 28, 2018, why she should not be dismissed as a plaintiff and why the claims regarding the recognition of her marital status to Plaintiff Loggins and interference with spousal co mmunication should not be voluntarily dismissed as set forth in the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal at Doc. 17 . The KDOC is not required to address the marriage/spousal communication issue in the Martinez report ordered at Doc. 11 . Any request for the undersigned to recuse is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate 16 is denied without prejudice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/14/18. Mailed to pro se party plaintiffs by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 6 is granted. Plaintiffs are granted until May 25, 2018, in which to file a complete and proper amended complaint. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 04/25/18. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins and Elizabeth M. Wilson by regular mail. (smnd)
|
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.
