Crenshaw v. Kirkpatrick et al
| William Crenshaw |
| Robert Kirkpatrick, James Hartman, Dennis McCaione, M. McCall, M. Kearney, Pat Connolly, Scott Andruiz and John Doe |
| 6:2008cv06186 |
| April 24, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Erie |
| David G. Larimer |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
137
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER granting defendant Richard Hamilton's 128 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 131 Motion to Amend or Correct the complaint and dismissing the complaint. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 6/2/14. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER denying plaintiff's 122 motion for expungement of his misbehavior report. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/10/13. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER denying plaintiff's 117 Motion to vacate this Court's prior Decision and Order 116 . Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 7/20/12. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115 of United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman and denying in all respects plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint 93 . Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 4/30/12. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss brought by defendants James Hartman, Dennis Macaione, M. McCall, Patrick Connolly, Richard Hamilton and Sergeant Brown 22 . Plaintiff's claims against all six of these defendants , with the exception of his excessive force claim against defendant Hamilton, are dismissed. In all other respects, defendants' motion is denied.Plaintiff's motions for discovery 18 , 34 , which relate to his now-dismissed retaliation cl aims, his motion for a court-appointed handwriting expert 30 , and his motion to compel discovery, which also mostly relates to claims that have now been dismissed, are denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion for an order directing DOCS "to approve correspondence" between plaintiff and another inmate 19 fails to allege facts providing a basis for the relief sought, and is also denied. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/20/10. (EMA)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER that defendants must advise the Court within 20 days of this order whether they intend to move to dismiss relative to the 8 new defendants that were added by plaintiff in his motion to amend and if such a motion is contemplated, how much time will be necessary to file it. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 11/5/09. (EMA)
|
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 Western 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.
