Channey v. Clark County School District

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Nevada District Court Channey v. Clark County School District

Channey v. Clark County School District

Plaintiff:	Marcus Kyle Channey
Defendant:	Clark County School District
Case Number:	2:2016cv02085
Filed:	September 2, 2016
Court:	U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
Office:	Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge:	Jennifer A. Dorsey
Presiding Judge:	George Foley
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
March 29, 2017	Filing 22 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: Defendant's 4 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's due-process-stigma claim (his fifth cause of action) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Th e motion is denied without prejudice in all other respects;This case is REMANDED back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Case No. A-16-740832-C, Dept. XXX. Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without preju dice to the ability to renew that request in state court. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet Sent to State Court - MR)
September 26, 2016	Filing 9 ORDER Granting 7 Stipulated Motion for Extension Of Time To File Opposition To Moti To Dismiss re 4 Motion to Dismiss. Responses due by 9/30/2016. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 29, 2017

Filing 22 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: Defendant's 4 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's due-process-stigma claim (his fifth cause of action) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Th e motion is denied without prejudice in all other respects;This case is REMANDED back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Case No. A-16-740832-C, Dept. XXX. Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without preju dice to the ability to renew that request in state court. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet Sent to State Court - MR)

September 26, 2016

Filing 9 ORDER Granting 7 Stipulated Motion for Extension Of Time To File Opposition To Moti To Dismiss re 4 Motion to Dismiss. Responses due by 9/30/2016. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Channey v. Clark County School District
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marcus Kyle Channey
Represented By:	Christopher Ammon Lund
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Clark County School District
Represented By:	S. Scott Greenberg
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	[ 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?