Stout et al v. Baroody et al
| Marc Stout and Jacqueline Stout |
| Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton, John Doe and Officer Ridenour |
| 3:2021cv00476 |
| July 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| John A Gibney |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 24
MOTION to Amend #12 Amended Complaint by Jacqueline Stout, Marc Stout. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Amended Complaint) (smej, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/16/2021: #2 Letter) (smej, ).
|
|
Filing 23
RESPONSE to Motion re #19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. filed by Jacqueline Stout, Marc Stout. (Attachments: #1 Letter) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER - This matter comes before the Court on the defendants Timothy Baroody and Brian Layton's motion for an extension to file a reply to the plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21.) The defendants received the plaintiff's response to their motion to dismiss on September 13, 2021. (Id. at 1.) Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion and DIRECTS the defendants to file a reply, if any, to plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss on or before September 27, 2021. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 9/15/2021. (smej, )
|
|
Filing 21
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton. (Fisher, Maurice)
|
|
Filing 20
Memorandum in Support re #19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. filed by Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton. (Fisher, Maurice)
|
|
Filing 19
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim with Roseboro,. by Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton. (Fisher, Maurice)
|
|
Filing 18
NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Marie Collie on behalf of Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton (Collie, Sarah)
|
|
Filing 17
NOTICE of Appearance by Maurice Scott Fisher, Jr on behalf of Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton (Fisher, Maurice)
|
|
Filing 16
SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Timothy Baroody served on 8/16/2021, answer due 9/7/2021. (Attachments: #1 USM Form) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 15
SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Brian Layton served on 8/16/2021, answer due 9/7/2021; Ridenour served on 8/16/2021, answer due 9/7/2021. (Attachments: #1 USM Forms, #2 Attachment) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 14
Summons Reissued as to Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton, Ridenour. Clerk placed in USM box for service. (Attachments: #1 USM Forms) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 13
SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Timothy Baroody served on 8/4/2021, answer due 8/25/2021; Brian Layton served on 8/4/2021, answer due 8/25/2021. (Attachments: #1 USM Forms) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 12
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton, Ridenour, filed by Marc Stout, Jacqueline Stout. (smej, )
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER - This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs' motion and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket the amended complaint attached to the motion and to issue summons upon the defendants. The Court DIRECTS the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants with the summons and a copy of the amended complaint. The defendants shall respond to the amended complaint pursuant to the deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). In addition, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs' "application for subpoenas" AS MOOT. (ECF No. 8.) Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 8/5/2021. (Copy electronically sent to plaintiffs) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Pro Se E-Noticing. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 8/5/2021. (Copy electronically sent to plaintiffs) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION to Amend #4 Complaint by Jacqueline Stout, Marc Stout. (Attachments: #1 Amended Complaint, #2 Cover Letter) (smej, ) (Main Document 9 replaced on 8/2/2021) (smej, ).
|
|
Filing 8
APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENAS by Marc Stout and Jacqueline Stout. (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION for Pro Se E-Noticing by Marc Stout and Jacqueline Stout. (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 6
Letter from the Clerk to pro se plaintiffs regarding defendant, John Doe. (smej, )
|
|
Filing 5
Summons Issued as to Timothy Baroody, Brian Layton. Clerk placed in USMS box for service. (Attachments: #1 USM Forms) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 4
COMPLAINT against Timothy Baroody, John Doe, Brian Layton, filed by Marc Stout, Jacqueline Stout. (Attachments: #1 Photo Exhibits, #2 Letter, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER - This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Upon due consideration, the Court FINDS the plaintiffs unable to pay the costs of proceeding in this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs' motions. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to docket the complaint and to issue summons upon the defendants. The Court DIRECTS the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants with the summons and a copy of the complaint. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 7/22/2021. (Copy mailed to plaintiffs) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Marc Stout. (Attachments: #1 Complaint - Received, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Letter) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 1
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jacqueline Stout. (Attachments: #1 Complaint - Received, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Letter) (smej, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
