Sipple et al v. Zevitz et al
| Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple |
| Michael L Zevitz, William H. Meyer, Shari Ashner, Teresa L. Watson, Mary Christopher, Cindi Beck and Cyndi Beck |
| 5:2023cv04038 |
| May 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Rachel E Schwartz |
| Holly L Teeter |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 29
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Defendants Mary Christopher, Teresa L. Watson re: #17 Motion to Dismiss (Segun, Milesha)
|
|
Filing 28
RESPONSE to #22 Supplement to Bill of Complaint in Equity by Defendants William H. Meyer, Michael L Zevitz. (Meyer, William)
|
|
Filing 27
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Defendants William H. Meyer, Michael L Zevitz re #7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Meyer, William)
|
|
Filing 26
ORDER denying #25 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint is denied without prejudice to refiling in compliance with the local rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 7/6/23. Mailed to pro se parties Gary Sipple & Annette Jeter-Sippleby regular mail. (msb)
|
|
Filing 25
MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint: Re #1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple, Gary Sipple (referred to Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz) (msb)
|
|
Filing 24
ORDER staying briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for temporary injunction (Doc. 21). Plaintiffs' motion is almost exactly the same as a motion the Court previously denied (Doc. 3). Defendants have motions to dismiss pending, to which Plaintiffs have responded. The Court finds it in the interest of justice to first consider the motions to dismiss before allowing briefing on a second motion for injunctive relief. Any response deadline for Doc. 21 will be set after the Court rules on the motions to dismiss. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 7/3/2023. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(md)
|
|
Filing 23
RESPONSE/Opposition by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple and Gary Sipple re #17 Motion to Dismiss, #15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and #7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (mls)
|
|
Filing 22
SUPPLEMENT to #1 Complaint (titled: Bill of Complaint in Equity Presentment to Void Proceedings and Jurisdiction) by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple, Gary Sipple. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits in Support) (jal)
|
|
Filing 21
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (titled: Verified Petition for Temporary Injunction) by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple, Gary Sipple. (jal)
|
|
NOTICE Re: Pro Se Mailing. Document 20 Order mailed to pro se Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple at 2831 SW 31st Court Apt. 206, Topeka, KS 66614; Gary Sipple at PO Box 67711, Topeka, KS 66667 on 6/28/2023 by regular mail. (jk)
|
|
Filing 20
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. The Court notes that multiple Defendants have filed #7 , #15 , and #17 motions to dismiss. Defendants Teresa L. Watson and Mary Christopher's #18 accompanying memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss raises the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity and judicial immunity, among other arguments asserted. Because defendants generally are entitled to have immunity issues resolved before discovery takes place and because of the efficiencies of resolving the motions to dismiss prior to discovery taking place, the Court finds good cause to delay the issuance of a scheduling order. See, e.g., Toney v. Harrod, No. 15-CV-3209-EFM-TJJ, 2018 WL 5830398, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2018) (staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss asserting an immunity defense and explaining that bifurcated discovery on claims not subject to an immunity defense can be "wholly inefficient"). If appropriate, the Court will enter an Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling after the District Judge rules on all currently pending and potentially forthcoming motions to dismiss. The Court directs the Clerk's Office to mail copies of this order to Plaintiffs at the addresses listed on the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 6/27/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER. Before the Court is Defendants Christopher and Watson's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #17 ). Plaintiffs' responses to the motion are due on or before July 17, 2023. If Plaintiffs fail to timely respond, the Court will likely take up the motion without the benefit of their response. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 6/27/2023. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(md)
|
|
Filing 18
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of #17 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Mary Christopher, Teresa L. Watson(Segun, Milesha)
|
|
Filing 17
MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Mary Christopher, Teresa L. Watson (Segun, Milesha)
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER. Before the Court is Defendant Beck's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs' responses to the motion are due on or before July 14, 2023. If Plaintiffs fail to timely respond, the Court will likely take up the motion without the benefit of their response. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 6/23/2023. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(md)
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Cyndi Beck (Brzon, Jonathan)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time (Doc. 13). The deadline to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss is extended to June 30, 2023. If Plaintiffs fail to timely respond, the Court will likely take up the motion without the benefit of their response. The Court is cognizant of Plaintiffs' pro se status and liberally construes their pleadings. But they are still expected to comply with the local rules. Plaintiffs are advised that in the future, any requests for extension of time must fully comply with D. Kan. R. 6.1, including a statement whether there has been prior consultation with other parties and the views of other parties. This statement is omitted from Plaintiffs' motion. A complete set of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas can be found on the District of Kansas website: https://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiffs to review all these rules as they are expected to comply with all of them. For example, these rules explain the form of pleadings and papers (D. Kan. Rule 5.1), time limits (D. Kan. Rule 6.1), the general requirements for pleadings and motions (D. Kan. Rule 7.1), and the requirements for filing a motion to amend (D. Kan. Rule 15.1). Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 6/14/2023. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (md)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION for Extension of Time to respond as to #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple, Gary Sipple (mls)
|
|
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: #13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to respond as to #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(bh)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Return Documents. The Clerk's Office notified the Magistrate Judge's chambers that on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Gary Sipple appeared in person in the Clerk's Office's Topeka Division. He gave documents to the Clerk's Office to provide to the Court, but he requested that these documents not be filed as part of the official record in this case. There is no record that these materials were provided to Defendants. The Court has not reviewed the materials because doing so would be permitting an inappropriate ex parte communication from Plaintiffs. The Court puts all parties on notice that it will not accept ex parte communications. If any party wants to present a matter to the Court, it must be raised via an appropriate motion or brief filed in the case to ensure that all parties receive timely and appropriate notice. As Mr. Sipple indicated that he does not wish to have the documents filed, the Court directs the Clerk's Office to return the documents back to Mr. Sipple via mail along with a copy of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 6/7/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(bh)
|
|
Filing 11
CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 06/26/2023 for Defendant Cyndi Beck to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 06/07/2023. Mailed to pro se party Annette Jeter-Sipple and Gary Sipple by regular mail. (nao)
|
|
Filing 10
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Jonathan C. Brzon on behalf of Cyndi Beck (Brzon, Jonathan)
|
|
NOTICE Re: Pro Se Mailing. Document 12 Order, along with documents, were mailed to Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (mls) Modified text (mls).
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Service of Response to Plaintiff's May 17, 2023 Discovery Requests by William H. Meyer, Michael L Zevitz (Meyer, William)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER. Before the Court is Defendants Meyer and Zevitz's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs' responses to the motion are due on or before June 16, 2023. If Plaintiffs fail to timely respond, the Court will likely take up the motion without the benefit of their response. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 5/30/2023. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(md)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants William H. Meyer, Michael L Zevitz (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Meyer, William)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER denying #3 Motion for Temporary Emergency Injunction. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 5/25/23. Mailed to pro se party Gary Sipple & Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail (msb)
|
|
Filing 5
CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 6/26/2023 for Defendants Mary Christopher, Teresa L. Watson to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 5/25/2023. Mailed to pro se parties Gary Sipple and Annette Jeter-Sipple by regular mail. (jsh)
|
|
Filing 4
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Shon D. Qualseth on behalf of Mary Christopher, Teresa L. Watson (Qualseth, Shon)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Temporary Injunction by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple, Gary Sipple (msb)
|
|
Filing 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET re #1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Annette Jeter-Sipple and Gary Sipple. (mls)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT (Summons Issued) with trial location of Topeka, filed by Annette Jeter-Sipple and Gary Sipple. (Attachments: #1 Preamble, #2 Exhibits) (mls)
|
|
FILING FEE PAID: in the amount of $ 402, receipt number 500000662. (mls)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
