KNIGHTEN v. MITCHEFF et al
| UNDRAY KNIGHTEN |
| MICHAEL MITCHEFF and JOHN DOES |
| 1:2009cv00333 |
| March 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Madison |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
ORDER - Memorandum of Decision Regarding Defense of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. For the reasons explained in this entry, Defendants affirmative defense that Plaintiff Undray Knighten failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to one of his two claims prior to filing this lawsuit is REJECTED. (S.E.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/10/2011.(CKM)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER denying defendant's 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties shall report to the court by July 14, 2010 whether they believe additional discovery relative to the subject of exhaustion will be necessary, and, if so, how promptly the discovery can be completed. A hearing date shall be set by separate order after the need for discovery, if any, is addressed (S.O.) Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/29/2010. (MAC) Modified on 6/30/2010 (MAC).
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER denying defendants' 31 Motion to Dismiss (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/25/2010. (MAC)
|
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 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.
