Endicott v. Hurley et al
Plaintiff: Franklin G. Endicott
Defendant: Larry Allen
Case Number: 2:2014cv00107
Filed: December 11, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: Hannibal Office
County: Pike
Presiding Judge: David D. Noce
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 283 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER motion is IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendants Larry Allen, Roger Avery, Jacob Baker, Tyree Butler, Lori Calvin, David Cutt, Kristin Cutt, Joyce Edwards, Chantay Godert, Richard Griggs, James Hurley, William Jones, George Lombardi, Jeffrey Reid, and James Rhodes for summary judgment (Doc. 252 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there being no remaining claims, this action is dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate judgment order is filed herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 9/27/2021. (JMP)
January 9, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 140 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendants to dismiss (ECF No. 118 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Count III is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon wh ich relief can be granted; Count VII is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Count IX is dismissed as to defendants Earls and Hurley, in that it fails to state a claim as to these defendants upon which rel ief can be granted; Count X is dismissed as to defendants Earls, Godert, Griggs, Hurley, Jones, and Lombardi, in that they are entitled to qualified immunity; Count XI is dismissed as to defendants Earls and Lombardi, in that it fails to state a cla im as to these defendants upon which relief can be granted; Count XII is dismissed as to defendants Allen, Butler, Earls, Godert, Griggs, Hurley, Jones, Lombardi, and Rhodes, in that it fails to state a claim as to these defendants upon which relief can be granted; Count XIII is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Count XIV is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Count XVII is dismissed, in that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; Count XVIII is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Count XX is dismissed, in that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; C ount XXI is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Count XXII is dismissed, in that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants motion is denied as to the following counts: Count IV states a claim; Count VIII states a claim; Count X states a claim as to defendant Davis; Count XI states a claim as to defendants Godert, Griggs, Hurley, and Jones; and Count XII states a claim as to defendants Baker and Cutt. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 1/9/17. (JAB)
September 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 113 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the consent motion of plaintiff for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF. No. 111 ) is SUSTAINED. The Clerk is directed to file plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 111-1) as a sep arate document. The Court having granted plaintiff leave to file his Fifth Amended Complaint, pending motions pertaining to the Third Amended Complaint are now moot, see Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings on the Third Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 82 , 84 ) are DENIED without prejudice as moot. In light of the filing of Fifth Amended Complaint, IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that the motion of defendants for an extension of time tofile a dispositive motion (ECF No. 112) is SUSTAINED. All defendants may have until September 16, 2016, to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff may have until September 30, 2016 to f ile a response. Defendants may have until October 7, 2016 to file a reply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the September 7, 2016, hearing date is vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all then pending motions is set for Tuesday, October 18, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. ( Motion Hearing set for 10/18/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 17N before Magistrate Judge David D. Noce., Response to Court due by 9/30/2016.). Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 9/1/16. (KKS)
February 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 75 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of certain defendants to dismiss or for other relief (Docs. 53 , 56 ) are sustained, in that the following groups of claims are separated for separate di sposition: Claim Group 1: Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 15; and Claim Group 2: Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14. In all other respects, the motions are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties confer and propose a schedule wher eby the parties, regarding Group 1, close discovery not later than April 30, 2016, and file motions for summary judgment on the Group 1 counts not later than June 30, 2016. A hearing on any such motion for summary judgment is set for July 15, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 2/1/16. (JAB)
February 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 15 OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs official-Capacity claims are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall reinstate all of the defendants named in the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue on each of the named defendants. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/27/15. (KJS)
January 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 12 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for extension of time [ECF No. 8 , 10 ] are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend judgment [ECF No. 9 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/22/15. (KJS)
January 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 6 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $208.73 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an origi nal proceeding. FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, then this case will be dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendant Larry Allen. FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendant Larry Allen shall reply to plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable provisio ns of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FURTHER ORDERED that defendants James Hurley, Scott Griggs, Jacob Baker, Alan Earls, George Lombardi, Corizon, Inc., Pasha Allen, Kendis Archer, Thomas Cabrera, Michelle Kelly, Roschell Davis , Lisa Ruby, Joyce Edwards, Kristin Cutt, C. Hoffman, Brooke Kurth, and James Rhodes are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard. An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 2/9/2015.). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 01/09/2015. (CLK)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Endicott v. Hurley 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: Franklin G. Endicott
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: Larry Allen
Represented By: Joel A. Poole
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?