Hughes v. Heimgartner et al

Plaintiff: Charley Hughes
Defendant: James Heimgartner and (fnu) Phelan
Case Number: 5:2012cv03250
Filed: December 10, 2012
Court: Kansas District Court
Office: Topeka Office
County: Butler
Presiding Judge: Sam A. Crow
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 3, 2014 10 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is granted. Plaintiff's claim of denial due process and plaintiff's claim for punitive damages are dismissed. The clerk of the cour t shall prepare summons and waiver of service forms pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk of the court shall enter the Kansas Department of Corrections as an interested party on the docket for the limited purpose of preparing the Martinez report. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 04/03/14. (Mailed to pro se party Charley Hughes by regular mail.) (smnd)
March 23, 2015 30 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's action against Defendant Phelan in his individual capacity is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim against Defendan t Heimgartner in his individual capacity is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 23 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 03/23/2015. Mailed to pro se party Charley Hughes by regular mail. (sv)
February 27, 2013 4 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days in which to provide a complete, certified copy of his KDOC inmate account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint in support of his motio n to proceed without prepayment of fees. Within the same thirty-day period, plaintiff must show cause why the following claims should not be dismissed from the complaint: (1) his denial of equal protection claim; (2) his RLUIPA claim for damages, w ith prejudice; (3) his claim for compensatory damages under the Free Exercise Clause due to lack of physical injury; and (4) his claim for punitive damages under the Free Exercise Clause for failure to allege facts in support. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/27/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Charley Hughes by regular mail.) (smnd)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hughes v. Heimgartner et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charley Hughes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: James Heimgartner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: (fnu) Phelan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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.