LACY v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
| 1:2009cv01484 |
| December 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
102
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 75 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants with regard to Plaintiff's: (1) excessive force claims against Officers Denny, Frantz, and Kirkpart rick; (2) failure to intervene claim against Officer Frantz; (3) Monell claim against the City; and (4) state law assault and battery claims against Officers Denny, Frantz, and Kirkpatrick. The issues remaining for trial are Plaintiff's: (a) failure to intervene claims against Officers Denny and Kirkpatrick; (b) state law assault and battery claims against Officer Ryan and the City; and (c) excessive force claim against Officer Ryan. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 11/10/2011. (PGS)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: LACY v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
