Scott v. Angerhofer et al, No. 2:2020cv00014 - Document 70 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 58 Motion for Relief from Memo Decision & Order. Defendant must within seven days respond to Plaintiff's 65 Motion for Relief from Defendant's Repeated Failure to Comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 9/7/2023. (eat)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Scott v. Angerhofer et al Doc. 70 Case 2:20-cv-00014-DAK Document 70 Filed 09/07/23 PageID.2544 Page 1 of 2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH JAMES SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MEMO DECISION & ORDER Case No. 2:20-CV-14 DAK DAVID ANGERHOFER et al., District Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendants. On March 13, 2023, the Court entered Memorandum Decision & Order Dismissing Most Federal Claims, Staying Utah Constitutional Claims, & Requiring Service of Process on Defendant Burnham. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff then filed Objection to Memo Decision & Order, (ECF No. 57), and Motion for Relief from Memo Decision & Order, (ECF No. 58). Between Plaintiff's Objection and Motion for Relief from Memo Decision & Order, Plaintiff says the page count the Court used regarding Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 22), was confusing; Plaintiff's "mental anguish and emotional distress" allegations should be applied to Plaintiff's remaining inadequate-medical-treatment claim; and the Court's analyses regarding Plaintiff's property-deprivation and free-speech claims were flawed. (ECF Nos. 57-58.) ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Memo Decision & Order is DENIED. (ECF No. 58.) Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00014-DAK Document 70 Filed 09/07/23 PageID.2545 Page 2 of 2 (2) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, so Plaintiff can be familiar with the page numbering used by the Court. (ECF No. 22.) (3) Plaintiff may be assured that "mental anguish and emotional distress" allegations will be considered as to his remaining inadequate-medical-treatment claim. (4) The Court analyses regarding Plaintiff's property-deprivation and free-speech claims stand. (5) Defendant must within seven days respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Defendant's Repeated Failure to Comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. (ECF No. 65.) DATED this 7th day of September 7, 2023. BY THE COURT: JUDGE DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
