WILLIS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
| MASTON WILLIS |
| INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL and MERLE HODGES |
| 1:2009cv00815 |
| July 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Miami |
| Larry J. McKinney |
| Larry J. McKinney |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
261
ORDER denying 260 Motion to Intervene - This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Williams-Bey must seek relief before any petition to intervene will be addressed on th e merits. Through the motion, Mr. Williams-Bey has not demonstrated that his interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiff or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motion; and Accordingly, the motion to intervene and to seek contempt remedies that is currently pending, [Filing No. 260], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/12/2014. (copy to Joseph Williams-Bey via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKTS. 80; 83.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 80.] The motion is granted with respect to Count I. As to Count II, the Court finds that the DOC violated Mr. Willis's First Amendment and RLUIPA rights. The Court grants his claim for nominal damages against Chaplain Hodges and denies his claim as against Dr. Hall. The Court further GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 83.] As to Count I, summary judgment is denied. As to Count II, the Court grants summary judgment with respect to Mr. Willis's claim against Dr. Hall and denies summary jud gment with respect to his claim against DOC and Chaplain Hodges. Mr. Willis, on behalf of himself and the class, requests injunctive relief in accordance with this Court's declaratory judgment. DOC does not dispute that insofar as the class as a whole, and Mr. Willis individually, are entitled to declaratory relief, they are likewise entitled to injunctive relief. However, at this point, neither party has presented cogent argument as to whether injunction should issue, nor illustrated wh at the scope of any injunction should be. The Court will conduct a hearing on the scope of injunctive relief to take place on November 30, 2010 at 1:30 pm in Room 307 at US Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Each side will have 20 minutes for oral argument. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer, with the assistance of the Magistrate Judge if requested, to attempt to agree on the terms of an injunction. If the parties cannot agree, they must each file a proposed form of injunction by November 23, 2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/1/2010. Copies sent via U.S. mail. (LBK)
|
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.
