Glass v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio et al
Chantelle Glass |
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Idris Farid Clark and Robert Marsh |
1:2019cv01825 |
August 12, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
Solomon Oliver |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 14 Response to #13 Motion for Telephonic Status Conference filed by Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit CR Docket - State v. Clark)(Gutkoski, Brian) |
Filing 13 Motion for Telephonic Status Conference filed by Plaintiff Chantelle Glass. (Sletvold, Ashlie) |
Filing 12 Response to #10 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to dismiss official capacity claims as redundant filed by Chantelle Glass. (Sletvold, Ashlie) |
Filing 11 Motion for Leave Instanter to Respond to Defendant Cuyahoga County's Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiff Chantelle Glass. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1: Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Cuyahoga County's Motion to Stay)(Sletvold, Ashlie) |
Filing 10 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to dismiss official capacity claims as redundant, with memorandum in support filed by Defendant Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit CR-19-638832-A State vs.Clark, et al, #2 Exhibit CR 19-638832 Indictment, #3 Exhibit CR-19-643485 State vs.Clark) (Gutkoski, Brian) |
Filing 9 FILING ERROR, correct document refiled, see entry #10 . Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to dismiss official capacity claims as redundant filed by Defendant Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit CR-19-638832-A STATE vs.CLARK, et al., #2 Exhibit 19-638832 Indictment, #3 Exhibit CR-19-643485 STATE vs.CLARK) (Gutkoski, Brian). Modified on 10/3/2019 for filing error (H,SP). |
Filing 8 Reply in support of #4 Motion to remand to State Court for lack of unanimous consent filed by Chantelle Glass. (Sletvold, Ashlie) |
Filing 7 Attorney Appearance by Daniel J. Leffler filed by on behalf of Robert Marsh. (Leffler, Daniel) |
Filing 6 Opposition to #4 Motion to remand to State Court for lack of unanimous consent and Motion to stay pending disposition of criminal cases filed by Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit CR 19-638832, State v. Clark, et al., #2 Exhibit CR 19-643284, State v. Clark, #3 Exhibit CV 19-917942, Glass v. Clark, et al.) (Gutkoski, Brian). Modified on 9/3/2019 to correct event (H,SP). |
Filing 5 Certified copy of state court documents received from Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, case number CV-19-917942. (W,Jo) |
Filing 4 Motion to remand to State Court for lack of unanimous consent filed by Plaintiff Chantelle Glass. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1: Proof of delivery)(Sletvold, Ashlie) |
Filing 3 Magistrate Consent Form issued. (B,R) |
Filing 2 Motion for leave to move, plead or otherwise respond filed by Defendant Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Gutkoski, Brian) |
Filing 1 Notice of Removal from Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas, case number CV-19-917942 with jury demand, Filing fee paid $ 400, receipt number 0647-9465260.. Filed by Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Complaint CV-19-917942 GLASS vs. CLARK, et al., #2 Exhibit Docket, #3 Exhibit Civil Cover Sheet) (Gutkoski, Brian) |
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. (B,R) |
Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr assigned to case, (B,R) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Ohio Northern 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.