Hartfield vs Besner, etc, et al
Plaintiff: Sean L. Hartfield
Defendant: City of Portland and Leo Besner
Case Number: 3:2011cv00100
Filed: January 26, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland Office
Presiding Judge: Garr M. King
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 154 OPINION AND ORDER - The City of Portland's Amended Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss Defendant Hartfield's Counterclaims 20 is granted. All of Hartfield's counterclaims against the City are dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 8/21/2014 by Judge Garr M. King. (pg)
January 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 146 OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL: Hartfield's Motion for an Order Setting Aside the Verdict and Judgment and Granting a New Trial on Damages 144 is denied. Signed on 1/14/2013 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)
October 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 107 OPINION AND ORDER ON MONELL CLAIM: The City's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Monell Claim, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment on the Monell Claim 71 is GRANTED and Hartfield's fifth claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 10/15/2012 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)
July 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 68 ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 26 is moot. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 48 is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:All claims against Serg eant Halliburton are dismissed with prejudice;Hartfield's Second Claim for Relief (Unreasonable Force), Third Claim for Relief (Violation of the Fifth Amendment) and Sixth Claim for Relief (Battery) are dismissed with prejudice;Officer Besner an d Sergeant Mahuna are entitled to judgment on their Third Affirmative Defense of qualified immunity. As a result, the First Claim for Relief (Fourth Amendment Violation) and the Fourth Claim for Relief (Failure to Supervise) against them are dismiss ed with prejudice.The parties are directed to confer and propose a schedule on the Fifth Claim for Relief (bifurcated Monell claim) within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. Unless otherwise informed by the parties, the November 6, 2012, trial remains scheduled on Hartfield's Seventh Claim for Relief (False Imprisonment) against Officer Besner only. Signed on 7/9/2012 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hartfield vs Besner, etc, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Portland
Represented By: J. Scott Moede
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Leo Besner
Represented By: J. Scott Moede
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sean L. Hartfield
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?