Taylor v. Griffith et al
| Samuel Lewis Taylor |
| Unknown Rich, Unknown Estes, Unknown Mezo, Unknown Rayfield, Unknown Tammi, Unknown Francis, Unknown Conrad, Unknown Bailey, Jackie Laird, Ian Wallace, Unknown Horn, Unknown Milum, Unknown Arcand, Unknown Miller, Unknown Salvage, Unknown Nixon, Unknown Coltan, Unknown Huitt, Unknown Dillion, Unknown Botkins, Unknown Cain, Unknown Glore, Unknown Spoo, Unknown Harper, Brian Allen, Jeffrey Turner, Unknown Coffman, Unknown Holly, Unknown Cassie, Unknown Demello, Cindy Griffith and Sharon Gifford |
| 1:2011cv00174 |
| September 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Cape Girardeau Office |
| Cape Girardeau |
| Stephen N. Limbaugh |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
68
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 66 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor; motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/13/13. (CSG)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant William Milam, Defendant Joe Arcand, Defendant Rickey Bailey, Defendant Michael Miller, Defendant Robert Savage, 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor. Summary judgment will be granted to the defendants. A separate order and judgment shall issue. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/23/13. (CSG)
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#26) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Special Affidavit (#27) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Clari fication (#36) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (#31, #37) are DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Depose (#48) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/8/2013. (JMC)
|
|
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 43 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/27/12. (MRS)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 21 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/13/12. (CSG)
|
|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue on the first amended complaint [Doc. #11] as to defendants Unknown Miller, Unknown Arcand, Unknown Milum, Unknown Bailey, and Unknown Salvage in their individual capacities only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in their individual capacities only, defendants Unknown Miller, Unknown Arcand, Unknown Milum, Unknown Bailey, and Unknown Salvage, shall file an answer or other responsive pleading direc ted to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims. Defendants shall so respond within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Unknown Miller,Unknown Arcand, Unknown Milum, Unknown Bailey, and Unknown Salvage, in their official capacities, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the first amended complaint, because it is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendant Unknown Horn, the Clerkshall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the first amended complain t is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this case as Samuel Lewis Taylor v. Unknown Miller, Unknown Arcand, Unk nown Milum, Unknown Bailey, Unknown Salvage, and Unknown Horn. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate order directing the dismissal of specific claims and defendants will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/23/12. (CSG)
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in formapauperis [Doc. #3] is GR ANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $3.65 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," an d to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint, in accordance with the ins tructions set forth above, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff five blankform complaints for the filing of a prisoner civil rights complaint, as well as five blank form motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may request additional forms from the Clerk, as needed.(Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 4/5/2012, Response to Court due by 4/5/2012.) Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/6/12. (CSG)
|
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 Missouri 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.
