Brooks v. Dodge City, Kansas, City of, et al
| Colleen Brooks |
| Dodge City, Kansas, City of and Drew Francis |
| 6:2022cv01271 |
| December 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Daniel D Crabtree |
| Angel D Mitchell |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 Employment Discrimination |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
INITIAL ORDER REGARDING PLANNING AND SCHEDULING: Scheduling Conference set for 3/6/2023 at 01:30 PM in Telephone ADM - CONFERENCE LINE 1-888-363-4749 ACCESS CODE 3977627 before Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell. Rule 26 Planning Conference Deadline 2/13/2023. Rule 26 Initial Disclosures Deadline set for 2/22/2023. Proposed Scheduling Order Deadline 2/22/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 1/27/2023. (ht)
|
| Filing 10 JOINT ANSWER to Complaint by Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis. (Mizner, Brandon) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #6 Defendants' Joint Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time To Answer Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants City of Dodge City, Kansas, and Drew Francis have until January 13, 2023, to file their answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 12/29/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (bal)
|
| Filing 8 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Thomas Harold Osborn on behalf of Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis. (Osborn, Thomas) |
| Filing 7 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Matthew J. Gist on behalf of Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis. (Gist, Matthew) |
| Filing 6 JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Defendants Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis. (referred to Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell) (Mizner, Brandon) |
| Filing 5 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Brandon D. Mizner on behalf of Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis. (Mizner, Brandon) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED -- Certified Mail by Colleen Brooks upon Dodge City, Kansas, City of served on 12/12/2022, answer due 1/3/2023; Drew Francis served on 12/10/2022, answer due 1/3/2023 (Welsh, Joseph) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Dodge City, Kansas, City of, Drew Francis (issued to Attorney for service). Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge Form provided to counsel for service with complaint. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (jk) |
| Filing 3 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Plaintiff Colleen Brooks - trial to be held in Wichita. (Welsh, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiff Colleen Brooks. (Welsh, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Wichita (Filing fee $402, Internet Payment Receipt Number BKSDC-5931126.), filed by Colleen Brooks. (Welsh, Joseph) |
| NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree and Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AVAILABILITY: A United States magistrate judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action if all parties voluntarily consent. Information & consent forms are available at http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge (jsh) |
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.
