Grothjan v. Indiana Department of Correction et al
Jason Grothjan |
Indiana Department of Correction, John Doe #1, Jane Doe #1, John Doe #2, Mr Darlyrymple, John Doe #3, Lt Travis, John Doe #4, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3, John Doe #5 and John Doe #6 |
3:2017cv00034 |
January 11, 2017 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
South Bend Office |
LaPorte |
Joseph S Van Bokkelen |
Michael G Gotsch |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 68 OPINION AND ORDER denying 37 Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS defendants until 8/30/2018, to request a hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 8/6/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc) |
Filing 50 OPINION AND ORDER: (1) TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT Defendant Charles Dalrymple's motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pending receipt of supplemental information from the plaintiff;(2) ORDERS Jason Grothnan to submit a sworn declaration or affidavit addressing all questions about his exhaustion efforts raised in the above opinion by March 15, 2018; (3) GRANTS Charles Dalrymple leave to respond to any filing by the plaintiff by April 15, 2018; and (4) CAUTIONS Jason Grothnan that failure to respond to this order will result in the summary judgment motion (ECF 37) being granted without further notice. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 2/23/18. (ksp) |
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.