Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-1784 - Kemp v. Arpaio et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-1784 - Kemp v. Arpaio et al
November 16, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint regarding the alleged assaults that occurred on April 7, 2010, August 6, 2010, and August 18, 2013; order Defendants Garner, Brown, and Arpaio to answer the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim pertaining to the alleged September 8, 2014 assault in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint; dismiss the following counts of the Second Amended Complaint: Count Two, Count Three, Count Four, Count Seven, Count Nine, Count Ten, Count Twelve, Count Thirteen, Count Fourteen, and Count Fifteen; order Defendant Feraru to answer Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint; order Defendants Arpaio, Tenny, McKay, Fisk, and Chavira to answer the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint. It is further recommended that Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1985 and 1986 be dismissed; order Defendants San Martin and Anders to answer Count Eight of the Second Amended Complaint;dismiss claims relating to incidents which occurred prior to September 2013 as time-barred and order Defendants Steinhauser, Burke, Guta, Bernal-Fulford, and Baerg to answer Count Eleven of the Second Amended Complaint regarding alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment medical claims arising from incidents dated October 18, 2013, September 9, 2014, and March 13, 2015; order Defendants Arpaio, Alvarez, Tenny, and McKay to answer Count Sixteen of the Second Amended Complaint; dismiss without prejudice Defendants Maricopa County, Montgomery, Rada, Najera, Klages, Rubio, Shugart-LBJ-McKay Team, Flannery, Carper, Acosta, Flaggman, Balaji, Wade, Bretado, Cooper, Odom, Logan, Cruz, Lee, Angry, Hughes, Bruner, Sminch, and Grange. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if the Court adopts this Report and Recommendation, the Court include the following language in its order: (See document for further details). This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Courts judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/16/2016. (REK)
February 22, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER (Service Packet): The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 77) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Defendants Garner, Brown, and Arpaio shall answer the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim pertaining to the alleged September 8, 2014 assault in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant Feraru shall answer Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Arpaio, Tenny, McKay, Fisk, and Chavira shall answer the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint. Dfendants San Martin and Anders shall answer Count Eight of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Steinhauser, Burke, Guta,Bernal-Fulford, and Baerg shall answer Count Eleven of the Second Amended Complaint regarding alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment medical claims arising from incidents dated October 18, 2013, September 9, 2014, and March 13, 2015. Defendants Arpaio, Alvarez, Tenny, and McKay shall answer Count Sixteen of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Maricopa County, Montgomery, Rada, Najera, Klages, Rubio, Shugart-LBJ-McKay Team, Flannery, Carper, Acosta, Flaggman, Balaji, Wade, Bretado, Cooper, Odom, Logan, Cruz, Lee, Angry, Hughes, Bruner, Sminch, and Grange are dismissed without prejudice from this action. The Clerk of Court shall send the plaintiff a service packet including the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 76), this Order, and a copy of the Marshal's Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for defendants Baerg, Garner, McKay, Fisk, Chavira, Alvarez, Brown, Steinhauser, and Burke. The plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide service of process if the plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. The following motions are denied as moot: (i) Defendants Arpaio and Tenny's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53), which concerns the First Amended Complaint; (ii) Defendant Brendon Baerg's 12(B)(5) Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. 63); and (iii) the plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service on Defendant Brendon Baerg (Doc. 68). See document for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/21/2017. (REK)
May 30, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 97 is accepted and adopted in part and is rejected in part as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis 93 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Rule 9(a)(2) Motion to Stay Substitution of Arpaio with Paul Penzone 88 is granted and that Sheriff Paul Penzone is substituted for defendant Arpaio only in his official capacity pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d), and that defendant Arpaio shall remain a defendant in this action in his personal capacity. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/30/2017. (REK)