Zahorik v. Trott et al
| Vicent Zahorik |
| Tracy Trott, Victor Donoho, Mark Stanford, Dan Moore, Mike Hamilton, Ron Meyers, Bradley Atkinson, Beverly Dunaway, Angela Scott, James G. ("Jerry Woodall, Mark Pilsner, Jeremy Kylen, Gilbert Gomez, Henry Porretto, City Of Galveston and County of Galveston, Texas |
| 3:2013cv00248 |
| July 10, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Galveston Office |
| Galveston |
| Gregg Costa |
| John R Froeschner |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
138
OPINION AND ORDER granting 134 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim regarding Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims and that Plaintiff Vincent Zahorik's action is DISMISSED(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
|
|
Filing
133
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; DENIED IN PART as to the Heck bar and GRANTED IN PART as set forth above; and that the following claims are DISMISSED: (a) Plaintiffs claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; (b) Plaintiffs claims under§1985 and §1986; (c) Plaintiffs §1983 claims against the individually-named Defendants (Kylen, Pilsner, Gomez and Porretto) in their official capacity; (d) Plaintiffs Fir st and Fourth Amendment claims brought under §1983; (e) Plaintiffs municipal liability claim against the Defendant City; and (f) all Plaintiffs state law claims. It is the further ORDER of this Court that Defendants provide additional briefing within fourteen days (14) of the date this Order is entered addressing Plaintiffs substantive due process and malicious prosecution claims. After Defendants file their additional briefing, Plaintiff will then have ten (10) days after its filing to respond; and, a reply by Defendants, if any, is then due five (5) days after Plaintiffs response, if any, is filed with the clerk. (Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
|
|
Filing
123
OPINION AND ORDER denying 113 Motion to Reopen the case against the Tennessee Defendants.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER denying as moot 104 Motion to Abstain; denying as moot 104 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 105 Amended Motion for Extension of Time on Notice of Appeal or in the Alternative, Indicate a Ruling on Motion for Relief that is Barred by a Pending Appeal.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
|
|
Filing
87
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of all Dfts and against Pltf. ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff TAKE NOTHING from the Tennessee Defendants, that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against the Tennessee Defendants are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdi ction and that the Tennessee Defendants RECOVER their costs from Plaintiff. It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff TAKE NOTHING from the Texas Defendants, that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against the Texas Defendants are DISMISSED wi th prejudice to being reasserted until the conditions of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), are met and that the Texas Defendants RECOVER their costs from Plaintiff....***Case terminated on 4/15/14(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
|
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 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.
