Williams v. County of Suffolk et al
| Clifford Williams |
| John 2:14cv5475 Doe, County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department |
| 2:2014cv05475 |
| September 18, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| P.I.: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
56
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' 52 motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 is granted in part, and denied in part. It is denied to the extent that the Defendants have not met their burden in showing that the Plaintiffs amended complaint cannot relate back to his initial complaint under Rule 15(c)(1)(A). It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution are dismissed. Therefore, the remaining claims that will be heard by the jury are the Section 1983 excessive force and conspiracy claims against all of the Defendants; and the Section 1983 Monell claim against the County. The parties are directed to appear before this Court for a status conference on March 8, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/12/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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 York Eastern 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.
