Doe v. Knutson
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Defendant: Shad Knutson
Counter Defendant: Jane Doe
Counter Claimant: Shad Knutson
Case Number: 8:2017cv00097
Filed: March 23, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 8 Omaha Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bataillon
Presiding Judge: Susan M. Bazis
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Education
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER ON FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - A final pretrial conference was held on the 16th day of July, 2018. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
October 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER that the Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 30 ) is denied. Defendant's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 31 ) is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
September 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER that this case will not be consolidated with the OPS action. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant at his address of record. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
August 22, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER that the parties shall have until September 5, 2017 to show cause why Doe v. Shad Knutson, 8:17CV97 (D. Neb. 2017) and Doe v. Omaha Public School District, 8:17CV96 (D. Neb. 2017) should not be consolidated for purposes of case progression and discovery. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC) Modified on 8/22/2017 to include copy mailed to pro se party (LAC).
August 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER that Defendant's motions for appointment of counsel (Filing Nos. 19 , 23 ) are denied. Defendant's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing Nos. 20 , 24 ) are denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
May 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER that the Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 10 ) is denied. Defendant's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 11 ) is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
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: Doe v. Knutson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter defendant: Jane Doe
Represented By: Richard P. McGowan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Represented By: Richard P. McGowan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter claimant: Shad Knutson
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Shad Knutson
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 [ 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?