Baker v. Scott et al
| Marlow Baker |
| John Root, John Doe and Josh Scott |
| 6:2020cv00099 |
| May 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Hanly A Ingram |
| Robert E Wier |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Hanly A. Ingram for review: #11 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (RBB) |
| Filing 11 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Graham, Curt) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by John Root, John Root, Josh Scott.(Graham, Curt) |
Filing 9
ORDER FOR MEETING AND REPORT: Court ORDERS as follows:(1) Within 21 days, the parties, by counsel, shall meet, either in person or by telephone, to consider the topics Rule 26(f)(2) mandates. (2) Within 14 days of the meeting, the parties shall file a joint status report. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/7/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on 6/9/2020.(RBB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing 8
AGREED ORDER: 1.The Defendants shall have up to and including June 11, 2020 to file an Answer or other responsive pleading in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on 6/9/2020. (RBB)cc: COR
|
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Robert E. Wier for review: re #6 Proposed Agreed Order regarding extension of time to respond to Complaint by John Root, John Root, Josh Scott (RBB) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Casey Cavanaugh Stansbury on behalf of John Root, John Root, Josh Scott (Stansbury, Casey) |
| Filing 6 Proposed Agreed Order regarding extension of time to respond to Complaint by John Root, John Root, Josh Scott. (Graham, Curt) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Curt Matthew Graham on behalf of John Root, John Root, Josh Scott (Graham, Curt) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT AND REFERRAL ORDER: 1. At the outset, the Court reminds the parties that, under Rule 1, they share with the Court the duty to construe, administer, and employ the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action; 2. Pursuant to 28:636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court refers this case to the appropriate United States Magistrate Judge for this Division; 3. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court retains for decision any motion dispositive of a claim or defense (as well as motions regulating the trial proof, including Daubert and motions in limine); 4. Concurrent with the filing of any Rule 12 motion, the moving party may file, as a separate motion, any request for a discovery stay pending resolution. The Court refers consideration of any such motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge; 5. Discovery Disputes shall be resolved as defined within this order; The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter this Standing Order in the undersigned's civil cases excepting Social Security, pro se, and prisoner post-conviction matters at case opening (or as the Court otherwise directs). Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier. (RBB)cc: COR
|
| Conflict Check run. (RBB) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to John Root, John Root, Josh Scott; Summons issued and returned to counsel, Brent L. Caldwell electronically (RBB), |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT 2 summons(es) presented referred to Pro Se (Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-4659799), filed by Marlow Baker. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - Booking Photograph, #3 Summons Deputy Josh Scott, #4 Summons Sheriff John Root)(RBB) |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
