ASHLOCK v. BROWN et al
| CHRISTOPHER ASHLOCK |
| RICHARD BROWN, C. NICHOLSON and J SEXTON |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2014cv00360 |
| November 20, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
50
Entry Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - On August 11, 2014, Christopher Ashlock, an inmate housed in the Secured Control Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"), tripped and fell down the stairs on his way to the shower. At the time he fell, Ashlock was handcuffed behind his back and wearing his shower shoes (flip flops). He was escorted, but not physically assisted by a correctional officer. Ashlock was knocked unconscious as a result o f the fall and transported to the Terre Haute Regional Hospital for emergency treatment. In this action, Ashlock seeks money damages from Correctional Officer Jon Sexton who was responsible for transporting Ashlock down the stairs to the shower. Defendant Correctional Officer Sexton seeks resolution of the claims alleged against him through summary judgment. He argues that Ashlock's constitutional rights were not violated and he is entitled to qualified immunity as to any money dama ges. For the reasons explained below, Officer Sexton is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his qualified immunity defense. "When summary judgment is sought on a qualified immunity defense, the court inquires whether the party opposin g the motion has raised any triable issue barring summary adjudication." Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184 (2011). In this case, Ashlock has not raised a material fact in dispute on the qualified immunity defense. Officer Sexton is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his qualified immunity defense. Officer Sexton's motion for summary judgment 26 is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See entry.) Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/27/2016. (BRR)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER denying 8 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment is futile because it fails to add a viable claim. To allow the amended complaint in this case would therefore be an act of futility and the motion to amend [dkt. 8] is denied. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2015. (AH)
|
|
Filing
6
ENTRY Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claimsand Directing Further Proceedings - The claims against Superintendent Brown and Lt. Nicolson are dismissed. The claim of deliberate indifference shall proceed against Officer Sexton in his indivi dual and official capacities. The claim for money damages is brought against Officer Sexton in his individual capacity only. While the claim for injunctive relief is brought against Officer Sexton in his official capacity only. The plaintiff' s 3 motion for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs [dkt. 3] is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.The plaintiff's 4 motion to appoint counsel [dkt. 4] is denied as prematur e.The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on defendant J. Sexton in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/26/2014. (AH)
|
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
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.
