Pearson v. Woodson et al
Plaintiff: Terry Pearson
Defendant: Myron Woodson
Case Number: 4:2018cv00522
Filed: April 5, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: Within US but Outside District
Presiding Judge: John M. Bodenhausen
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
July 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 90 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment 74 is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for extension of time to file summary judgment motion 70 , plaintiff's motion for extension of the Case Management Order 72 , and plaintiff's motion for leave to file out of time motion compel discovery 73 are denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 7/2/19. (KEK)
June 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for discovery and service of an unknown male officer [Doc. # 15 ] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will enter a Case Management Order simultaneously herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 6/13/18. (KJS)
April 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $24.61 within thirty (30) days of the da te 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 original proceeding. IT IS 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that th e Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendant Myron Woodson in his individual capacity. Defendant Woodson, a Missouri Department of Corrections employee, shall be served through the waiver agreement this C ourt maintains with the Attorney General's Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendant Myron Woodson shall reply to plaintiffs claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs claims against Myron Woodson in his official capacity are subject to dismissal as these claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.  67; 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendants Chantay Godert, Ryan Crews and Unknown Male Corrections Officer because, as to these defendants, the compl aint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has ninety (90) days to amend his pleading to add the specific identity of Unknown Male Corrections Officer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5: Prisoner Standard. An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on April 10, 2018. (BRP)
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

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?