Willett v. Turley et al
Plaintiff: Duane Willett
Defendant: Steven Turley and Mike Haddon
Case Number: 2:2010cv00382
Filed: April 29, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
Office: Central Office
County: Salt Lake
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Kimball
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 90 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 53 Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs Eight Amendment Claim re 50 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, Memorandum Decision ; denying 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Action ; granting in part (with respect to Item C in his First Request for Production of Documents - Doc. No. 75) and denying in part 81 Motion to Compel; granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants may file a reply brief within fourteen days after Plaintiff's opposition memorandum is filed. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 2/26/13. (jlw)
March 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 50 MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 03/05/12. (jlw)
July 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER:granting 15 Motion to cure deficiencies regarding his amended complaint; finding/Denied as moot 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend; (see Docket entry #17) Plaintiffs Second amended complaint has already been fi led and accepted by the court; granting 24 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner). The United States Marshals Service shall serve a summons, a copy of Plaintiffs complaint, and a copy of this Order upon Defendants Sharon Damico, Colleen Gabbitas , Tom E. Patterson, Steven Turley. The United States Marshals Service shall serve a completed summons, a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (see docket #21) and a copy of this Order upon the above listed defendants. 5) Within twenty days of being s erved, Defendants must file an answer or motion to dismiss and proposed order, as outlined above. 6) If filing on exhaustion or any other basis a Martinez Report with a summary judgment motion and proposed order, Defendant must do so within ninety da ys of filing their answer. 7) If served with a Martinez report and a summary judgment motion or motion to dismiss, Plaintiff may file a response within thirty days. 8) Summary judgment motion deadline is ninety days from filing of answer.. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 07/07/2011. (kpf)
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Willett v. Turley et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Duane Willett
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: Steven Turley
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: Mike Haddon
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?