Inniss v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)
Case Number: 2:2017cv00188
Filed: March 30, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Barbour
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER: it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the 64 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED as follows: 1) Dfts' 21 , 33 , 34 , & 46 motions for summary judgment are GRANTED; 2) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; 3) Costs are taxed against Plf; A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 3/3/2020. (amf, )
March 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER denying without prejudice 1 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; it is ORDERED that this case, including the 1 motion for a preliminary injunction, is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/30/2017. (wcl, )
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Inniss v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)
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.

Why Is My Information Online?