Hoppes v. Cook et al

Hoppes v. Cook et al

Case Number:	3:2024cv00115
Filed:	May 16, 2024
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office:	South Bend Office
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 16, 2024	Filing 7 OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Brenton Hoppes leave to proceed against Officer Michael Cook in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for the use of excessive force when removing the handcuffs at Hoppes cell on August 6, 2022, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; GRANTS Brenton Hoppes leave to proceed against Officer T. McCarty in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to intervene in the use of excessive force on August 6, 2 022, at Hoppes cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Jordan Owens, D. Shafer; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States M arshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Michael Cook and T. McCarty at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint 1 ; ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide t he full name, date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Michael Cook and T. McCarty to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 5/16/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sej)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 16, 2024

Filing 7 OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Brenton Hoppes leave to proceed against Officer Michael Cook in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for the use of excessive force when removing the handcuffs at Hoppes cell on August 6, 2022, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; GRANTS Brenton Hoppes leave to proceed against Officer T. McCarty in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to intervene in the use of excessive force on August 6, 2 022, at Hoppes cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Jordan Owens, D. Shafer; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States M arshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Michael Cook and T. McCarty at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint 1 ; ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide t he full name, date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Michael Cook and T. McCarty to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 5/16/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sej)

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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hoppes v. Cook et al
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?