Frazier v. Thomas et al (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 44

ORDER that Defendants' 40 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint on or before 10/22/2015. After reviewing Defendants' answer, on 11/4/2015 at 2: 00 PM, C.S.T., in Courtroom 2-B, in Montgomery, AL, the court will hold a Joint Status Conference, on the record, before Chief Judge William Keith Watkins in this case and four other 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases involving lethal injection challenges c urrently pending before it (i.e., Grayson v. Dunn, et al., 2:12-cv-316-WKW; Roberts v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1028-WKW; Myers v. Myers, et al.,2:14-cv-1029-WKW; and Hunt v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1030-WKW). This caseand the four other § 1983 cas es identified above shall be hereinafter collectively referred to in this Order and any further Orders from the court in this matter as the Midazolam Litigation. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/8/2015. (dmn, ) Copies furnished to calendar group, AR.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DEMETRIUS FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. WALTER MYERS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-781-WKW (WO – Do Not Publish) ORDER Before the court is Defendants’ Consent Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 40.) Based upon careful consideration of the motion, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Doc. # 40) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint on or before October 22, 2015. After reviewing Defendants’ answer, on November 4, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., C.S.T., in Courtroom 2-B, United States Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama, the court will hold a joint status conference, on the record, in this case and four other 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases involving lethal injection challenges currently pending before it (i.e., Grayson v. Dunn, et al., 2:12cv-316-WKW; Roberts v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1028-WKW; Myers v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1029-WKW; and Hunt v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1030-WKW). This case and the four other § 1983 cases identified above shall be hereinafter collectively referred to in this Order and any further Orders from the court in this matter as the “Midazolam Litigation.” At this status conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the following issues: (1) whether discovery should be consolidated in the Midazolam Litigation; (2) whether the final hearing should be consolidated in the Midazolam Litigation; (3) what discovery needs to be conducted in the Midazolam Litigation; and (4) how the issues, discovery, and the evidence in the Midazolam Litigation differ, if any, from that in the Arthur case (2:11-cv-438-WKW). DONE the 8th day of October, 2015. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.


Why Is My Information Online?