Ali v. Quarterman
Plaintiff: David Rasheed Ali
Defendant: Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number: 9:2009cv00052
Filed: March 27, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Lufkin Office
County: Polk
Presiding Judge: Judith K. Guthrie
Presiding Judge: Thad Heartfield
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 420 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Plaintiff's motion for taxation of costs and attorney's fees 356 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ORDERED that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff $16,312.72 in costs and $214,160.44 in attorney's fees and expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 4/29/15. (ljw, )
December 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 418 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER. Defendant's motion to stay the judgment as to the enforcement of the TDCJ religious head wear policy pending appeal is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12/3/14. (ljw, )
February 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 227 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Plaintiff's requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are GRANTED to the extent that William B. Stephens, his successors, and all persons acting in concert with him are RESTRAIN ED and ENJOINED from enforcing the TDCJ grooming policy prohibiting David Rasheed Ali from wearing and maintaining a quarter-inch beard as an exercise of his rights under the RLUIPA. In all other respects, the Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/4/14. (ljw, )
January 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 136 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 124 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Plaintiff's 118 motion for an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/8/12. (ljw, )
September 24, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER ADOPTING 70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim which relief may be granted. All motions, specifically including but not limited to the Plaintiff's 39 motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for injunctive relief are denied. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/24/10. (ljw, )
October 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the United States Magistrate Judge as the opinion for for the District Court. Further Ordered that the 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied and the Court grants the 33 Motion for for leave to file out of time objections. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/21/09. (djh, )
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 Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ali v. Quarterman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Rasheed Ali
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: Nathaniel Quarterman
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?