WALLACE v. HOUNSHEL et al
Case Number: 1:2006cv01560
Filed: October 25, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: John Daniel Tinder
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 135 ORDER denying 92 pltfs Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety; granting in part and denying in part 104 107 Motions for Summary Judgment; With regard to the Plaintiffs § 1983 claim, summary judgment isGRANTED in favor of Defendants Dav id Ridlen, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., Jerry Hounshel, and Marc Lahrman in his individual capacity and DENIED with regard to Defendants Josh Teipen, Missy Robinson, Faisal Ahmed, and Marc Lahrman in his official capacity. With regard to t he Plaintiffs wrongful death claim, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all of the Defendants on the Plaintiffs claim pursuant to Ind. Code 34-23-1-1; summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all of the individual Defendants and DENIED as to Defendant Marc Lahrman in his official capacity and Defendant AdvancedCorrectional Healthcare, Inc., with regard to the Plaintiffs claim pursuant to Ind. Code 34-23-1-2. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/19/2009. (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: WALLACE v. HOUNSHEL 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?