Smith v. Haag et al
| Andre Smith |
| Raymond Haag, Christy Alchimowicz, Lisa Hayth, Heman Fowler, Jill Northrup, Catherine Felker, Angela Gorg, Jill Jilson and Diana Weed |
| 6:2008cv06360 |
| August 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Chemung |
| Charles J. Siragusa |
| None |
| 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
86
DECISION AND ORDER denying 77 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 80 Motion ; denying 81 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum; denying 82 Motion for Settlement; terminating 84 Motion. Defendants' motion [#82] to enfor ce a settlement is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Plaintiffs motion [#84] in opposition to Defendants' motion, which is actually just a response to Defendants motion [#82], and not an actual motion. Plaintiffs applicat ion for appointment of counsel [#77] is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's application [#81] for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is denied. Plaintiffs request to be transferred to the Los Angeles County Jail [#80] is also denied.T his action could have been settled months ago. It remains in the parties' interests to settle this action. If the matter is to proceed to trial, Plaintiff will obviously need to attempt to retain an attorney who is willing to try this case on the terms set forth above. Such newly-retained counsel will also presumably want to depose Plaintiff, which deposition would presumably take place in California. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order the parties shall notif y the Court in writing whether they have settled the action, and if not, Plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing, by the same date, of the name, address and telephone number of his retained attorney. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 3/2/15. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
70
DECISION AND ORDER denying 54 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 54 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims to the extent that they involve the alleged denial of root canals or dentures. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in writing, within thirty (30) days after the date of filing of this Decision and Order why the Court should not grant summary judgment in favor of Weed.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 11/29/11. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
59
DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Compel; granting 17 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiff's proposed supplemental complaint 17 as the Supplemental Complaint. Defendants shall answer or move to dismiss the Supplemental Complaint within twenty days. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/22/2009. (KAH)
|
|
Filing
55
DECISION AND ORDER denying 32 Motion for TRO. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 9/3/09. (KAP)
|
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.
