Undlin v. Minneapolis, City of et al
| Michael S Undlin |
| Jane Doe II, Minneapolis, City of, Tim Dolan, Lance Faust, John Doe I, Jane Doe I, Hennepin, County of, Richard Stanek, Brian Peterson, Vernon Trombley, Brock Heldt, Brie Pileggi, Robert Hillestad, Deb Miller and John Doe II |
| 0:2008cv01855 |
| June 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Hennepin |
| Ericksen |
| Noel |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
105
ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Undlins Amended Motion to Alter Judgment [Docket No. 100] is GRANTED insofar as he seeks vacatur of the judgment against him and in favor of Miller, Pileggi, Hillestad, and the unidentified Hennepin County COs on his 7; 1983, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arising from his confinement to the restraint chair.2.The remainder of Undlins Amended Motion to Alter Judgment [Docket No. 100] is DENIED.3.The Judgment entered on Ma rch 17, 2009 [Docket No. 86] is VACATED.4.The Order adopting the R&R [Docket No. 85] is VACATED.5.Counts I, III, VII, and X are REINSTATED insofar as they assert § 1983, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims a gainst Miller, Pileggi, Hillestad, and the unidentified Hennepin County COs.6.All remaining claims in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the R&R [Docket No. 80](Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 4, 2009. (slf)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.The Clerk of Court shall docket the Plaintiffs April 27, 2009 e-mail.2.The Clerk of Court shall amend the docket on CM/ECF to indicate that Plaintiffs memorandum of law [Docket No. 91] is linked to his Rule 59(e) motion [ Docket No. 87] instead of to his motion to stay the Order dismissing the Complaint, to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, and to continue the deadlines for the Rule 59(e) motion [Docket No. 89]. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on April 29, 2009. (slf)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Plaintiffs Motion to Stay the Order Dismissing the Complaint, to Extend the Deadline for Filing a Notice of Appeal, and to Continue the Deadlines for the Rule 59(e) Motion [Docket No. 89] is DENIED AS MOOT insofar as Plai ntiff seeks to stay the Order dismissing his Complaint and to extend the deadline for filing an appeal.2.Plaintiffs Motion to Stay the Order Dismissing the Complaint, to Extend the Deadline for Filing a Notice of Appeal, and to Continue the Deadlines for the Rule 59(e) Motion [Docket No. 89] is DENIED insofar as Plaintiff seeks to continue the deadlines set forth in the April 10 Order. 3.Plaintiff shall refrain from contacting, either in-person or by telephone, the Court and the Courts staff, unless the Hennepin County and Minneapolis Defendants participate through counsel during the contact. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on April 20, 2009. (slf)
|
|
Filing
85
VACATED PER ORDER DOCKET #104 - ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 80 and granting 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by Minneapolis, City of, Lance Faust, Tim Dolan, and granting 14 Motion to Dismiss filed by Brie Pileggi, Brian Peterson, Robert Hillestad, Brock Heldt, Hennepin, County of, Vernon Trombley, Richard Stanek, Deb Miller. This action is dismissed with prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 16, 2009. (slf) Modified on 11/4/2009 (vem).
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendant City of Minneapolis' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [#8] be GRANTED, and recommends that Defendant Hennepin County's Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment [#14] be GRANTED. ORDER that Defendant Hennepin County's Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment [#5] is DENIED as moot, that Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Facts Readily Verifiable [#70] is DENIED, that P laintiff's Motion to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot [#72], and that Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Facts Readily Verifiable [#73] is DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/6/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel on 2/18/09. (jam) Modified on 2/19/2009 (Moralez, Vickie).
|
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 Minnesota 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.
