RILEY v. N.J. STATE PAROLE BOARD et al
| GEORGE C. RILEY |
| N.J. STATE PAROLE BOARD, JAMES PLOUSIS, EDWARD JACKSON, FREER, CHRISTOPHER C. JOSEPHSON, DAG and MARK AND MARY ROES 1-10 |
| 3:2015cv07186 |
| September 30, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Trenton Office |
| Mercer |
| Douglas E. Arpert |
| Freda L. Wolfson |
| Conditions of Confinement |
| 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
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the § 1983 claims, including the Monell claim, against the New Jersey State Parole Board are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE; that § 1983 claims for damages against the individual Defendants in their official capacities a re dismissed WITH PREJUDICE; that Count VII is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants Josephson and Plousis; that Plaintiff may submit an Amended Complaint within 30 days with respect to the claims that the Court has dismissed with prejudice; t hat the Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate Defendant Josephson from the docket as there are presently no live claims against this Defendant; that the Complaint shall otherwise PROCEED at this time; that, the Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff a transmittal letter explaining the procedure for completing Unites States Marshal 285 Forms. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 7/14/2017. (mmh)
|
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 New Jersey 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.
