MATTHEWS v. PETERSON et al
Case Number: 1:2005cv00008
Filed: January 3, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: Richard L. Young
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS 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
August 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 156 ENTRY denying plaintiff's 149 Motion for Reconsideration (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/23/2010. (PG)
December 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ENTRY granting Defendants' 137 Motion for Summary Judgment (see Entry). The dismissal is without prejudice, so that if the Heck bar is removed at some future time, Plaintiffs claim will actually accrue and may be asserted in an appropriate forum. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/30/2009. (PG)
February 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 119 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker for the status conf held on 2/12/09; denying 101 Motion to Stay; The parties shall file a proposed CMP within 20 days of the date of this order Signed by Magistrate Baker on 2/19/09(CBU)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MATTHEWS v. PETERSON 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?