Singh v. Franke, et al
| Rotish Vikash Singh |
| D. Wettlavfer, J. Taylor, V. Reynolds, M. Gower, S. Shelton, M.E. Perkins, Greenwald, O. Hanson, Jackson, G. Lytle, B. Martinez, M. Mathisen, J. Myrick, Brown, Tom Clark, Kent Fanger and S. Franke |
| 2:2012cv00873 |
| May 16, 2012 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Pendleton (2) Office |
| Anna J. Brown |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
139
Opinion and Order: The Court GRANTS State Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) Motion [111-1] to Dismiss and Rule 12(c) Motion [111-2] for Judgment on the Pleadings, DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Wettlaufer and Belleque, and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs claims againstDefendant Lytle. Signed on 03/26/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 13 page Opinion and Order for full text. (bb)
|
|
Filing
126
OPINION AND ORDER. The Court GRANTS Defendant Tom Clark's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12 (b) (6) 96 . Because Plaintiff was previously granted leave to amend to state a claim against Defendant Clark, the dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Sever Mis-Joined Defendants is DENIED as moot. Signed on 12/20/2013 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gw)
|
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 Oregon 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.
