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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-2083 - Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-2083 - Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas et al
March 31, 2017
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court concludes that Evans is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim against him in his individual capacity for retaliation in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismisses with prejudice this claim. Accordingly, the court vacates in part the 12/1/2015 (Doc 29)to the extent herein stated, and grants Defendant Derick Evans's 26 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The court, therefore, grants Defendants' 39 Limited Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against Dallas County and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's equal protection and First Amendment free speech claims against Dallas County that were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denies as moot Defendants' Limited 39 Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claims against Evans; and denies Norvis Harmon's 42 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Any motion based on qualified immunity by Evans regarding First Amendment Petition Claim must be filed 4/28/2017. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/31/2017) (ykp)
August 8, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 63 Motion for Recusal. The court recognizes that there may be valid reasons to seek recusal or disqualification of a judge, but Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse presents no valid reasons for recusal or disqualification. The court fully understands, and takes no exception, that a party may disagree with its legal rulings and appeal them. That is a party's right. The allegations and arguments that Plaintiff makes are not supported by facts or the law and simply are "beyond the pale." The court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Doc. 63) under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(2). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/8/2017) (axm)
February 20, 2018
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order grants 57 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Derick Evans and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Petition Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Evans in his individual capacity. As no further claims remain, the court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants Dallas County and Evans by separate document pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/20/2018) (ndt)