Daugherty v. City of Lincoln et al
Plaintiff: Arrmon H. Daugherty
Defendant: Armstrong, City of Lincoln, Denzin, Hose, Lincoln Police Department, Smith and Vigil
Case Number: 4:2010cv03111
Filed: June 9, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 4 Lincoln Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bataillon
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
July 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 72 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's "Motion to Withdraw Document Regarding Notice of Appeal" (Filing No. 71 ) is granted. Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the clerk's office shall not process the appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG, )
May 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 70 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Filing No. 65 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG )
February 22, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 62 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Motion for Protective Order (Filing No. 60 ) is denied. Defendants need not respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. If a progression order is later entered in this matter, Plaintiff will be required to re-serve his discovery requests in accordance with that progression order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
October 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) 43 filed by defendants Hose, Smith, Armstrong, Lincoln Police Department, Vigil, City of Lincoln, and Denzin. Defendants' Motio n to Dismiss (filing no. 43 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiff shall have until November 4, 2011, to properly serve Defendants with service of process. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 11/4/2011: Deadline for Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party with 7 summons and 285 forms)(JAB)
September 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 47 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion for Stay. It has been approximately 40 days since Plaintiff filed his motion, and he has yet to file an amended complaint. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
January 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 30 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff shall obtain service of process on Defendants. Plaintiff must complete and return the summons forms which the Clerk of the court will provide. The Clerk of the court shall send SEVEN summons forms and SEVEN USM-2 85 forms to Plaintiff, together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Upon receipt of the completed forms, the Clerk of the court will sign the summonsforms, to be forwarded with a copy of the Amended Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service ofp rocess. The Marshal shall serve the summons and Amended Complaint without payment of costsor fees. Plaintiff is hereby notified that failure to obtain service of process on a defendantwithin 120 days of the date of this order may result in dismissal of this matter without further noticeas to such defendant. A defendant has 21 days after receipt of the summons to answer or otherwiserespond to a complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with th e following text: May 3, 2011: Check for completion of service of summons. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 5/3/2011.) Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed; 7 Summons/7 USM-285 forms mailed)(MKR)
December 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER denying as moot 22 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
November 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal 18 , which the court liberally construes as a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), is granted. Plaintiff shall have until December 22, 2010, to a mend his Complaint. The clerk of the court is directed to resend to Plaintiff the court's September 16, 2010, Memorandum and Order 10 . The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the followi ng test: Check for amended complaint on December 22, 2010. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without further notice. ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 12/22/2010 - Check for amended complaint onDecember 22, 2010.)Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed.)(JAE)
November 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 16 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
October 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding returned mail 12 . This case cannot be prosecuted in this court if Plaintiff's whereabouts remain unknown. Plaintiff shall have until November 12, 2010, to apprise the court of his current address, in the absence o f which this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 11/12/2010: deadline for informing court of new address. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
September 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 8 Motion to Extend. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
September 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff shall have until October 17, 2010, to amend his Complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants will be dismissed without further notice. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: Check for amended complaint on October 17, 2010. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
June 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Arrmon H. Daugherty shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $12.54 by 7/23/2010, unless an enlargement of time is granted in response to a written motion. Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 7/23/2010: initial partial filing fee payment due. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and plaintiff's institution)(JAB)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Daugherty v. City of Lincoln 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: Armstrong
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: City of Lincoln
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: Denzin
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: Hose
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: Lincoln Police Department
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: Smith
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: Vigil
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: Arrmon H. Daugherty
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?