Masseo v. Gibbons et al
Plaintiff: |
Chrissy Israel Masseo |
Defendant: |
James Arthur Gibbons, Sigmund Rogich, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Bill Young, Donald Campbell and Pennie Mossett-Puhek |
Case Number: |
2:2008cv01387 |
Filed: |
October 14, 2008 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Office: |
Civil Rights: Other Office |
County: |
Clark |
Presiding Judge: |
Roger L. Hunt |
Presiding Judge: |
Peggy A. Leen |
Nature of Suit: |
Both |
Cause of Action: |
Federal Question |
Jury Demanded By: |
42:1981 Civil Rights |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
December 23, 2010 |
Filing
268
ORDER Mazzeos Emergency Motion to Lift Stay and for a Local Rule 16-2 Conference 263 is DENIED. The parties shall have thirty days from decision of the Defendants pending interlocutory appeals in which to file the joint pretrial order as to any claims which survive summary judgment and/or interlocutory appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 12/23/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
October 28, 2010 |
Filing
254
ORDER that Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment 169 224 226 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: DENIED as to Mazzeos claim against Gibbons for battery; GRANTED as to Mazzeos claim against Gibbons for intentional infliction of e motional distress; GRANTED as to Mazzeos § 1983 claim against Metro and Young for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection; DENIED as to Mazzeos § 1983 claim against all Defendants for First Amendment Retaliation. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 10/27/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
September 30, 2010 |
Filing
252
ORDER Granting 245 Motion to Strike 244 Response to Motion and Denying 246 & 248 Motions for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 9/30/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
|
August 30, 2010 |
Filing
243
ORDER denying 240 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order.; granting 241 Motion to Strike. The Court therefore strikes Plaintiffs Opposition 239 from the record. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 8/30/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)
|
July 27, 2010 |
Filing
237
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 222 Motion to Compel. The Motion is granted to the extent the District Attorneys Office shall reimburse counsel for Plaintiff the cost of the court reporters fee for attending and transcribing Ms.Mey ers deposition and providing an original and one copy of the transcript. The Clark County District Attorneys Office shall deliver, within 10 days of the date of this order, the Griffith file at issue in this motion to the court for in-camera re view, along with a copy of the privileged document log for the file. The in-camera submission shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 10-5. The Motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/26/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)
|
July 26, 2010 |
Filing
235
ORDER denying 181 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/23/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MJZ)
|
June 29, 2009 |
Filing
85
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Motions to Dismiss: 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 35 . Granting 44 Motion to Amend Complaint. Second amended complaint due in 10 days. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 6/29/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM)
|
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 Nevada 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?