Marshall et al v. Department of Children and Family Services
Plaintiff: Robert Donald Marshall, Jr. and Angel Maria Marshall
Defendant: Department of Children and Family Services
Case Number: 2:2013cv00224
Filed: August 23, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Vermont
Office: Burlington Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: William K. Sessions
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
May 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 97 OPINION AND ORDER granting 95 Renewed Motion to Dismiss; granting 96 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 5/4/2016. (law)
March 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 78 OPINION AND ORDER: 42 Motion for More Definite Statement and 43 Motion for More Definite Statement are denied as moot, all claims against Dr. Halikias and Ms. Clough are dismissed; 53 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cla im is denied as moot; 46 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted, all claims against Ms. Kainen pertaining to Mr. Marshall are dismissed; 51 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted, all claims agains Mr. Carlstrom, Ms. Foster, Ms. Hanson, Ms. Melke, Ms. Neil, Ms. Pellerine, Ms. Tucker are dismissed; 62 Motion to Strike 59 Reply to Response and 77 Emergency Motion to Appoint Counsel are denied; 48 Motion to Reopen Case, 64 Second Motion to Stay, 65 Motion for Leave to Appear Notification, 67 Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction, 68 Motion for Injunction, 73 Motion to Conduct Federal Investigation Violations of Federal, Criminal Civil Rights Statutes, 75 Motion for Civil Rights to be Restored Without DCR Interference, 76 Motion for Adoption Revocation/Dissolution/Reversal are denied; 69 Motion to Subpoena for Records is denied; 70 Motion to Waive Fees for Early Neutral Evaluation is denied as premature; 49 Motion for Leave to File a Continuance as to 32 Amended Complaint, 66 Motion to Amend Complaint, 72 Motion to Add Deprivation of Rights Violations to Case are granted in part, denied in part. The plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days. Failure to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days may result in final dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 3/27/2015. (law)
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 Vermont District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marshall et al v. Department of Children and Family Services
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Donald Marshall, Jr.
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: Angel Maria Marshall
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: Department of Children and Family Services
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?