Ratliff v. Lape et al
| Deon M Ratliff |
| Alex Lape, Officer Brannon, CO Moore, CO Sullivan and CO Lawson |
| 2:2026cv00512 |
| April 27, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Kimberly A Jolson |
| Edmund A Sargus |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 23, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #6 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 6/23/2026. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification)
|
| Filing 7 REPLY to Response to Motion re #4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Defendants Officer Brannon, Alex Lape, CO Lawson, CO Moore, CO Sullivan. (Downey, Daniel) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct #3 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Opposition to #4 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff Deon M Ratliff. (bew) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: The next step in this case is a sua sponte review of the Notice of Removal to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction. Should the Court find that it has jurisdiction, it will then conduct an initial screening of the operative complaint. The Court will conduct these initial matters as soon as practicable and enter an appropriate Order and/or Report and Recommendation. The Court will consider any pending motions after, or along with, these initial matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 5/5/2026. (kk2)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Officer Brannon, Alex Lape, CO Lawson, CO Moore, CO Sullivan. (Downey, Daniel) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the parties are notified that if all parties consent, a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form may be accessed at the following link: #AO-085. The consent form should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent form unless all parties have signed the consent. (er)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
| Filing 3 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed originally in Fairfield County CCP on 3/29/2026 by Deon M Ratliff against Officer Brannon, Alex Lape, CO Lawson, CO Moore & CO Sullivan. (er) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND filed originally in Fairfield County CCP on 3/29/2026 by Deon M Ratliff against Officer Brannon, Alex Lape, CO Lawson, CO Moore & CO Sullivan. (er) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, case number 26-CV-00343 ( Filing fee $ 405 paid - receipt number: AOHSDC-11007957), filed by CO Lawson, CO Moore, Officer Brannon, Alex Lape, CO Sullivan. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit State Court Filings) (Downey, Daniel) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern 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.
