Johnson v. Smith et al
Plaintiff: Edward Johnson
Defendant: Brian Smith, Josh Stallons and Edward Eastman
Case Number: 5:2021cv00187
Filed: December 30, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Presiding Judge: Thomas B Russell
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 TEXT ORDER by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 2/3/2022. At the request of counsel, the Rule 16 Telephonic Scheduling Conference currently set for 2/15/2022 is CANCELLED. IT IS ORDERED:1. Counsel shall be available for a TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON MARCH 21, 2022 at 8:30 AM CENTRAL TIME. The Court will place the call to counsel.2. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) Fed.R.Civ.P. counsel shall discuss and establish a discovery plan which shall be submitted to the Court at the scheduling conference either orally during the telephonic conference or in writing. Counsel are directed to make the mandatory disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(l) Fed.R.Civ.P. by said conference date.3. At the Rule 16 telephonic scheduling conference dates will be fixed for the following, as appropriate to the case: a) Joinder of additional parties and amendments to pleadings. b) Disclosure of deadlines for experts. c) Discovery scope, limits and completion. d) Filing of dispositive motions. e) Exchange of exhibits and final witness lists. f) Conferences before trial, including a final pretrial conference. g) Trial. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached.cc:counsel (KPH)
February 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 TEXT ORDER by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 2/3/2022. IT IS ORDERED:1. Counsel shall be available for a TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON FEBRUARY 15, 2022 at 10:00 AM CENTRAL TIME. The Court will place the call to counsel.2. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) Fed.R.Civ.P. counsel shall discuss and establish a discovery plan which shall be submitted to the Court at the scheduling conference either orally during the telephonic conference or in writing. Counsel are directed to make the mandatory disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(l) Fed.R.Civ.P. by said conference date.3. At the Rule 16 telephonic scheduling conference dates will be fixed for the following, as appropriate to the case: a) Joinder of additional parties and amendments to pleadings. b) Disclosure of deadlines for experts. c) Discovery scope, limits and completion. d) Filing of dispositive motions. e) Exchange of exhibits and final witness lists. f) Conferences before trial, including a final pretrial conference. g) Trial. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc:counsel (KPH)
January 24, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Edward Eastman, Brian Smith, Josh Stallons. (Sigler, James)
January 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Edward Johnson. Edward Eastman served on 1/4/2022, answer due 1/25/2022. (Haggard, Kenneth)
January 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Edward Johnson. Josh Stallons served on 1/4/2022, answer due 1/25/2022. (Haggard, Kenneth)
January 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Edward Johnson. Brian Smith served on 1/6/2022, answer due 1/27/2022. (Haggard, Kenneth)
January 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Edward Eastman, Brian Smith, and Josh Stallons. Counsel for Plaintiff is responsible for printing and serving the attached issued summons(es). (MNM)
December 31, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Case Assignment (Random Selection): Case Assigned to Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. (MNM)
December 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Edward Eastman, Brian Smith, and Josh Stallons. Filing fee $402, receipt number AKYWDC-3496611, filed by Edward Johnson. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Tendered) (MNM)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Smith et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edward Johnson
Represented By: Kenneth R. Haggard
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Brian Smith
Represented By: H. Douglas Willen
Represented By: James A. Sigler
Represented By: Matthew J. Sigler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Josh Stallons
Represented By: H. Douglas Willen
Represented By: James A. Sigler
Represented By: Matthew J. Sigler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edward Eastman
Represented By: H. Douglas Willen
Represented By: James A. Sigler
Represented By: Matthew J. Sigler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?