Huskey v. Burris et al
| Jerry Lee Huskey, Jr. |
| Paul Burris, Dionne Kelly, William E. Hickle, Brendon Fox, Matthew Crowell, Rick Lisenbe, Matthew Shults, Steven Lorts, Unknown Dowdy, Unknown Alexander, Unknown Reed, Unknown Jones, Carl Unknown, Unknown Adminstrator, Unknown Asst. Administrator and Unknown Traning Supervisor |
| 4:2018cv00731 |
| May 10, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| Phelps |
| Audrey G. Fleissig |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
61
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. ECF No. 58 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before September 25, 2019, Plaintiff shall provide his initial disclosures to Defendants and file a notice of compliance with the Court. Plaintiff is advised that the disclosures and documents themselves must be served directly on defense counsel, and only the notice of compliance should be filed with the Court. (Response to Court due by 9/25/2019.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/5/19. (EAB)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a continuance (Docket No. 49) is DENIED at this time. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on July 17, 2019. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Kelley's motion (Doc. No. 33 ) for additional time in which to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Defendant Kelley's mem orandum in opposition (Doc. No. 37 ) is deemed timely filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Shults' motion (Doc. No. 42 ) for additional time in which to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Defendant Shults shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a response to Plaintiff's motion. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/16/2019. (CLO)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Shults' motion for additional time in which to file a responsive pleading (Docket No. 22 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Shults shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order in which to file a responsive pleading. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 3/12/2019. (AFC)
|
|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for leave to file an answer and affirmative defenses (Docket No. 20 ) out of time is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have ten (10) days from the date of this order in which to file an answer and affirmative defenses. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on February 13, 2019. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 17 ) is DENIED at this time. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on February 6, 2019. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee of $0.81 within twenty-one (21) 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) the statem ent that the remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 4 ) is DENIED at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for subpoenas (Docket No. 5 ) is DENIED as premature. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue upon defendant Dionne Kelly in her individual capacity as to plaintiff's claims that she failed to allow him to see the doctor and intentionally withheld prescribed medication. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue upon defendant Matthew Shults in his individual capacity as to plaintiff's claim that he intentiona lly denied plaintiff dental treatment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Unknown Administrator/President, Unknown Assistant Administrator/Vice President, Unknown Training Supervisor/Coordinator, Paul Burris, Wil liam Hickle, Brendon Fox, Matthew Crowell, Brittany Rowe, Rick Lisenbe, Steven Lorts, Unknown Dowdy, Unknown Alexander, Unknown Reed, Unknown Jones, and Unknown Carl are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's clai ms against defendants Dionne Kelly and Matthew Shults in their officials capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Dionne Kelly and Matthew Shults in their individual capaci ties are DISMISSED without prejudice, with the exception of plaintiff's claims against Kelly for failing to allow him to see a doctor and intentionally withholding prescribed medications, and plaintiff's claims against Shults for intenti onally denying him dental treatment. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this partial dismissal would not be taken in good faith. A separate order of partial dismissal will be entered herewith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/2/19. (KXS)
|
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.
