Morris v. Doyle et al
Plaintiff: Franklin Morris
Defendant: Larry Doyle, Unknown Scott and Unknown Swats
Case Number: 4:2007cv01629
Filed: September 14, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge: Jean C. Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 144 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Larry Doyle's, Lloyd Swafford's, & Scott Bonney's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 108 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Franklin Morris' Motion for Sum mary Judgment Against Defendants Diane Cockrell, Larry Doyle, Co. Phillips (a.k.a. Fields), Lynn Park, Lloyd Swafford, Scott Bonney, Lincoln County Jail, Gerald M. Auerbach, Matthew Liefer, Joseph Vaughn,United States Marshals Service and United States 106 is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 6/8/10. (TRC)
March 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the unknown agents or employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the unknown agents or employees of the United States Marshall Service, the unknown agents or employees of the United States Department of Justice, the unknown agents or employees of the Lincoln County Jail, the unknown agents or employees of the Lincoln County Sheriffs Department, and the unknown agents or employees of the United States of America are DISMISSED from this lawsuit, with prejudic e. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until Monday, April 5, 2010 to serve Defendant Correctional Officer Phillip Huff. If Defendant Huff is not served by that date, then theCourt may dismiss Huff for lack of timely service. Response to Court due by 4/5/2010. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 3/22/10. (CLA)
November 12, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery 94 is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 11/12/09. (TRC)
June 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 44 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 28 , 23 , 42 , 35 , 20 , 30 , 43 , 37 ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days, Plaintiff shall file an AmendedComplaint. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Franklin Morris' Motion for Leaveto File Amended Complaint, Pursuant to Rule 15(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Motion to Defer Dispositive Rulings Pending Filing of Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law(Doc.No. 35) is GRANTED. This Court's January 13, 2009 Order (Doc.No. 36) is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Larry Doyle's, Lloyd Swafford's and Scott Bonney' ;s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Move Case to Trial, Substantiate Facts Pertaining to Defendant's Negligence, Deny Defendant's Summary Judgment (Do c. Nos. 28, 30) are DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Franklin Morris' Motion to Modify Case Management Order (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Franklin Morris' Motion to Strike Defendant United States Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Modify CaseManagement Order[,] and in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Reply Brief (Doc. No. 42) and Plaintiff Franklin Morris' M otion to Strike Defendants Larry Doyle, Lloyd Swaffords & Scott Bonney's Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Case Management Order[,] and in the Alternative, Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File a Reply Brief (Doc. No. 43) are DENIED as moot. ( Response to Court due by 7/10/2009.). Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 6/25/09. (CEL)
January 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER re 35 ORDERED that Plaintiff Franklin Morris' Motion for Leave to FileAmended Complaint, Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Motion to Defer Dispositive Rulings Pending Filing of Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED.. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 1/13/09. (CEL)
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: Morris v. Doyle et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Larry Doyle
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: Unknown Scott
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: Unknown Swats
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 ]
Plaintiff: Franklin Morris
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?