Pitts et al v. City of Cuba et al
| Sharon Pitts, Lisa King, Marilyn Copling and Daniel Pitts |
| City of Cuba, Cuba Police Department, Steelville Police Department, Tim Bailey, Doug Shelton, R. Shanklin, Paul Crow, Richard Dildine, Kenny Killeen, Kevin Copling, Ralph Bayless, Faye Howard, Maruice Grant, Les Murdock, Harold Halbert, Jason Wilkerson, Randy Martin, Nicholas W. Mathews, Scott Parish, Adam Reed, Kent Robinson, Jay Coleman, Crawford County Sheriff Department, Frank Magel, Shane Spratt, Robert Rickerd, Owensville Police Department, Lake Area Narcotics Group, South Central Drug Task Force and Missouri State Highway Patrol |
| 4:2010cv00274 |
| February 16, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| Crawford |
| E. Richard Webber |
| 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
225
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, City of Cuba, City of Cuba Police Department, Ralph Bayliss, Les Murdock, Maurice Grant, Harold Halbert, Faye Howard, Kenny Killeen, Kevin Copling, Kent Robinson, Pa ul Crow, Doug Shelton, Jason Wilkerson, and Tim Bailey's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 180 ] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The only Counts remaining for trial are the following: Counts I, II, III, XIX, and XX against Defendant Copling in his individual capacity; and Counts I, II, and III, pertaining to a civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant Bailey in his individual capacity. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 12/19/2012. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
208
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Jay Coleman and Randy Martin's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 177 ] is GRANTED. Counts I, II, and III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, against Defendants Martin and Coleman, are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 11/16/2012. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
165
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Scott Parish's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 148 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Frank Magel and Shane Spratt's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 155 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 30, 2012. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
125
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Shane Spratt, Frank Magel and the South Central Drug Task Forces Motion to Dismiss [doc.# 98 ] is GRANTED, in part. Count XXIII, the sole Count alleged against Defendant SCDTF, is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 7/12/11. (KJS)
|
|
Filing
124
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Lake Area Narcotics Groups Motion to Dismiss 86 is GRANTED. Count XXII is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Defendant Lake Area Narcotics Group Motion to Dismiss 112 is DENIED.Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on June 16, 2011. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
123
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Defendant Magel, Spratt, and the South Central Drug Task Force's Motion to Dismiss [doc. #110], which is actually a responsive brief, is DENIED, as moot. IT IS HEREB Y FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not consider Plaintiffs Sharon Pitts, Lisa King, Marilyn Copling, and Daniel Pitts Reply to Defendants Shane Spratt, Frank Magel, and South Central Drug Task Force Doc 114 Motion to Dismiss 115 , as it is an imp roperly filed Sur-Reply. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Magel and Spratt and SouthCentral Drug Task Forces Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants Motion to Dismiss 117 ; Plaintiff' Motion for Leave to File Plaintif f' Motion to Quash and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash 118 ; Defendants Magel and Spratt and South Central Drug Task Forces Motion to Oppose Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash 119 ; and Plainti ffs Sharon Pitts, Lisa King, Marilyn Copling, and Daniel Pitts Motion to Oppose Defendants Shane Spratt, Frank Magel, and South Central DrugTask Force Doc 119 Motion to Oppose 120 are DENIED, as moot. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on June 9, 2011. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Frank Magel, Shane Spratt, and South Central Drug Task Force's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 35 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Crawford County Sheriff's Department, Randy Martin, and Jay Coleman's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 43 ] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Count XXIX is DISMISSED, with prejudice, as are Counts XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII, as to Defendant Martin and Defendant Coleman only. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion of Defendants Robert Rickerd and Owensville Police Department to Dismiss [doc. # 45 ] is GRANTED. Counts I, XI, XII, XV, and XVI are DISMISSED, with prejudice, as to Defendant Rickerd only. Count XXV, the sole Count a lleged against Defendant OPD, is also DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Missouri State Highway Patrol, Rhonda Shanika, and Nicholas Mathews' Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 51 ] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Counts XXI, XXII, XXIII, and XXIV are DISMISSED, with prejudice. Count XXX is DISMISSED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion of Defendants Steelville Police Department and Adam Reed to Dismiss [doc. # 74 ] is GRANTED. Count XXXV is D ISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [doc. # 63 ] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth above. Plaintiffs are directed to file, no later than January 31, 2011, a complete updated Amended Complaint, containing all of the Counts alleged against all of the Defendants, with the proposed amendments made to Counts XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, and XXX only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' ; Sur-Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 54 ] is DENIED, as moot. Plaintiffs' Motions to Quash [docs. # 48 , 56 , 58 ], which are actually responsive briefs, are also DENIED, as moot. (Response to Court due by 1/31/2011). Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 1/7/11. (KLH)
|
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.
