From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Runyan v. City of Phoenix

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 20, 2011
No. CV 11-983-PHX-RCB (MEA) (D. Ariz. May. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV 11-983-PHX-RCB (MEA).

May 20, 2011


ORDER


On January 5, 2011, Plaintiff Jason Lee Runyan, who is represented by attorney Keith M. Knowlton, filed a Complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court raising civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. On May 17, 2011, Defendants City of Phoenix, Price, Seitter, Authement, and Middleton filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). The Court will order Defendants to answer the Complaint.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

II. Complaint

28 U.S.C. § 1915A28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to the excessive use of force during his January 7, 2010 arrest. Plaintiff alleges claims of: gross negligence/negligence (Count One), excessive force (Count Two), and violations of Plaintiff's civil rights (Count Three).

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that Plaintiff's allegations adequately state a claim for relief. The Court will require Defendants to answer the Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants must answer the Complaint.

(2) Plaintiff must either serve each Defendant not already served or seek a waiver of service for each Defendant not already served.

Defendant Wood appears to be the only named Defendant not yet served.

(3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

(4) Defendants must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(6) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).


Summaries of

Runyan v. City of Phoenix

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 20, 2011
No. CV 11-983-PHX-RCB (MEA) (D. Ariz. May. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Runyan v. City of Phoenix

Case Details

Full title:Jason Lee Runyan, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: May 20, 2011

Citations

No. CV 11-983-PHX-RCB (MEA) (D. Ariz. May. 20, 2011)