Edwards v. Clark et al
Terry Edwards |
Clark, Honeywood, King, Mann and Roberts |
4:2016cv00331 |
March 14, 2016 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
St. Louis Office |
St. Louis - City |
E. Richard Webber |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 63 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against Defendants Pamela Clark, Darrick Honeywood, Luzella King, Timothy Mann and Russell Roberts are DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Edwards Terry's Motion for Subpoenas [ECF No. 46 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 7/10/17. (EAB) |
Filing 49 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 41, 45] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoenas [ECF No. 46] is held in abeyance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Directed to Plaintiff [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on November 23, 2016. (MCB) |
Filing 42 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Answer [ECF No. 36 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer [ECF No. 39 ] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/26/2016. (CBL) |
Filing 32 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) Because the Court finds that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a failure-to-protect claim, defendants' argument fails. Additionally, defendants have not argued that plaintiff's right to be free from s ubstantial risks of serious harm is not a clearly established right. Therefore, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the motion is denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 26 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/4/2016. (CBL) |
Filing 25 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 24 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/13/2016. (CBL) |
Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on the complaint. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 4/14/16. (EAB) |
Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 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 th e remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail plaintiff a prisoner civil rights complaint form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must submit an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 3/23/2016. (Form and order mailed to plaintiff at St. Louis City Workhouse this date.)(CBL) |
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.