Ledford v. Rutledge et al
| Carl Lee Ledford |
| Dustin Rutledge, Rogelio Escutia, Andrew D Hahn, Bradley Balasa, A Shefferly, R Nystuen, Shane Lamartz, E M and Sheriff |
| 1:2017cv00438 |
| October 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Fort Wayne Office |
| Allen |
| Paul R Cherry |
| Theresa L Springmann |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
97
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS the Fort Wayne Defendants' 90 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTS, but for relief different that requested, Defendant Balasa's 92 Motion to Dismiss. All claims against Defendant Rutledge, the Sheriff of Knox, the City of Wabash and the Wabash police department, the City of Indianapolis, Michigan City and the Michigan City police department, the State of Indiana and the State of Indiana police department, the unnamed Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, and the Cou nties of Largo, Marion, Elkhart, Allen, and Starke are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's claims for violation of his Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Amendment rights; civil and federal conspiracy; intentional infliction of emo tional distress; and malicious prosecution are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to ALL Defendants. In addition to improper joinder, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for Monell liability against Defendants City of Nappanee, City of Knox, and LaPo rte County; however he has not yet had the opportunity to amend these claims, and the Court will DISMISS them WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff GRANTED thirty (30) days to file a notice with the Court regarding what claims he wishes to maintain i n this action and what claims, if any-that the Court has not dismissed with prejudice-that he still wishes to pursue in separate actions. The Plaintiff also has thirty (30) days within which to file a second amended complaint in this act ion that complies with the joinder requirements and the pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to adequately plead a claim for Monell liability, if appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 9/4/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(tc)
|
|
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Dfts Balasa and Hahn's Motions to Dismiss 34 , 38 and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims against Dfts Balasa and Hahn. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dfts Escutia, LaMartz, and Rutledge& #039;s Motion to Dismiss 36 , finding that the Pla has sufficiently stated a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under § 1983 as to Dft LaMartz, but DISMISSING the remainder of the Plas claims against these Dfts WITHOUT PREJUDICE . The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dft E.M.'s Motion to Dismiss 41 , finding that the Pla has sufficiently stated a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under § 1983, but DISMISSING the remainder of the Plas clai ms against Dft E.M. WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES the Plas Motion for Default and Summary Judgment 43 in its entirety. The Court DENIES as MOOT Dfts Escutia, LaMartz, and Rutledge's Motion for Extension of Time 49 . Regarding the Court& #039;s sua sponte finding that the Pla has failed to state a claim against the Sheriff, the Court GRANTS the Pla thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a brief arguing against such a finding. The Court also GRANTS the Pla thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint. The Pla is also granted leave to refile his Motion for Summary Judgment at an appropriate time. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/28/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
|
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 Northern 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.
