HOWARD v. CITY OF DURHAM et al
| DARRYL HOWARD |
| CITY OF DURHAM, DARRELL DOWDY, E. E. SARVIS, MICHELE SOUCIE, SCOTT PENNICA, MILTON SMITH and JOHN AND JANE DOE OFFICERS & SUPERVISORS 1-10 |
| 1:2017cv00477 |
| May 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Durham |
| JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE |
| THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
360
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 5/26/2022; that Dowdy's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (Doc. 339 ) is DENIED. (Carter, Alexus)
|
|
Filing
292
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 11/2/2021. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the pending motions are granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Defendan ts' motion to exclude the pardon of innocence (Doc. 210 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's motion to admit the pardon and summary of December 2016 Order (Doc. 186 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Reference to the entry of the December 2016 Order is permitted as noted herein, but there can be no reference during trial to any finding of "factual innocence" in that order. Reference to the pardon of innocence will be permitted, subject to the parties&# 039; submission of briefing by November 5, 2021 addressing how the pardon should be characterized, with any proposed limiting instruction. There shall be no reference to the pardons reliance on the December 2016 Orders finding of "factual innoce nce." 2. Defendants' motion to exclude Charles Drago's report and testimony (Doc. 147 ) is DENIED. 3. Defendants' motion to exclude Marilyn Miller's report and testimony (Doc. 149 ) is GRANTED IN PART as to her first opinio n, DENIED as to her second opinion, and GRANTED as to her third opinion, as noted herein. 4. Defendants' motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Moira Artigues (Doc. 151 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants' motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Ar tigues regarding Howard's alleged "wrongful conviction" or "innocence" (Doc. 153 ) is DENIED, subject to the limitations set out in this opinion. 5. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Suzanna Ryan's testimony (Doc. [155 ]) is GRANTED IN PART as to her opinion of several days as noted and otherwise DENIED. 6. Plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of Howard's other acts is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent noted herein, subject to future ruli ngs by the court depending on the evidence offered at trial. 7. Plaintiff's motion to exclude purportedly inculpatory hearsay evidence (Doc. 173 ) is DENIED. 8. Plaintiff's motion to exclude opinion testimony from the Durham assistant dist rict attorneys (Doc. 176 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent noted herein. 9. Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendants' from introducing evidence of their good character is DENIED to the extent noted herein. 10. Plaintif f's motion to preclude Darryl Dowdy's opinion that Doris Washington engaged in prostitution (Doc. 184 ) is DENIED. 11. Plaintiff's motion to permit leading questions (Doc. 191 ) is DENIED without prejudice. 12. Defendants' motio n to preclude argument that Defendant Dowdy destroyed the Southerland tape or his notes (Doc. 167 ) is DENIED. 13. Defendants' motion to preclude any argument or testimony from Mary Winstead regarding DPD document retention policies (Doc. 170 ), to the extent not agreed to by the parties, is DENIED. 14. Defendants motion to exclude testimony or argument that the manner in which Roneka Jackson was killed by the New York Boys (Doc. 178 ) is GRANTED to the extent noted herein. 15. Defendant s' motion to exclude evidence or argument that Roneka Jackson was a confidential informant prior to 1994 (Doc. 181 ) is DENIED. 16. Plaintiff's motion to permit evidence of Jermeck Jones's invocation of the Fifth Amendment (Doc. 163 ) is GRANTED and Defendants' motion to exclude evidence or argument regarding Jermeck Jones's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege (Doc. 201 ) is DENIED to the extent noted herein. 17. Defendants' motion to preclude any testimony from Eric Lamont Shaw (Doc. 188 ) is DENIED. (Engle, Anita)
|
|
Filing
119
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 09/16/2020, that Defendant City of Durham's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 73 ) is GRANTED, and Howard's direct con stitutional claims (Eighth Cause of Action) are DISMISSED; Defendant Milton Smith's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 75 ) is GRANTED as to Howard's common law malicious prosecution claim (Seventh Cause of Action), which is DISMISSED, bu t is otherwise DENIED as to Howard's § 1983 fabrication claim (First Cause of Action) and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (Sixth Cause of Action); Defendants Michele Soucie and Scott Pennica's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 77 ) is GRANTED, and the claims Howard brings against them in his § 1983 claim (Third Cause of Action), common law obstruction of justice claim (Fourth Cause of Action), and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim ( Sixth Cause of Action) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Defendant Darrell Dowdy's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 79 ) is GRANTED IN PART as to Howard's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim (First Cause of Action) to the extent noted herein, as well as to his common law malicious prosecution claim (Seventh Cause of Action), which is DISMISSED; but is otherwise DENIED; and Defendant City of Durham's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 81 ) is GRANTED, and Howard's 7; 1983 Monell claims (Second Cause of Action) as well as the derivative state law claims for common law obstruction of justice (Fourth Cause of Action) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Sixth Cause of Action) are DISMISSED.(Taylor, Abby)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action for negligence against Soucie and Pennica in their individual capacity is GRANTE D, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action for negligence against Dowdy and Smith in their official capacity as duplicative of the Monell claim against the City of Durham is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dowdy and Smith in their official capacity as duplicative of the Monell claim against the City of Durham is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the motion to dismiss the seventh cause of action for common law malicious prosecution claim against Dowdy and Smith in their official capacity as duplicative of the Monell claim against the City of Durham is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; The motion to dismiss all other claims is DENIED. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 3/31/2018. (Marsh, Keah)
|
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 North Carolina Middle 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.
