THOMAS v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
| 1:2009cv01516 |
| December 10, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Richard L. Young |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
179
ENTRY on Defendants' Motion to Use Specific Evidence - Defendants' Motion (Dkt. 177 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/2/2012. (See Entry for details) (TRG)
|
|
Filing
176
ENTRY on Supplemental Motion in Limine - Defendants' supplemental motion in limine (Dkt. 172 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/1/2012. (TRG)
|
|
Filing
153
ENTRY and Order on Final Pretrial Conference - Plaintiff appears by counsel Amy L. Cueller. Defendants appear by counsel Andrew R. Duncan, Beth Ann Dale, Clifford R. Whitehead, and John F. Kautzman. The Court Reporter is Fred Pratt. Jury trial r emains scheduled to commence on February 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 344. Defendants motion for a jury view (Dkt. 146 ) is denied. The trial of this case was discussed, rulings made and directions given. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (See Entry for details)(TRG)
|
|
Filing
151
Entry on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Answer - Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 125 ) is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to file Defendants' Answer. Defendants' motions in limine (Dkt. 123 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's motions in limine (Dkt. 116 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (See Entry for details)(TRG)
|
|
Filing
148
ENTRY ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - Given the unique posture of this case, where many of the motions in limine are contingent on the disposition of an unripe motion, the Court was unable to offer definitive rulings on many of the parties 9; motions. Therefore, the Court's entry on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 125 ) will more thoroughly set out which motions in limine are granted and which are denied. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/13/2012.(JD)
|
|
Filing
126
ENTRY ON MOTION TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT - Defendants' Motion to Limit the Testimony of Dr. Villanustre (Dkt. 104 ) is DENIED. Dr. Villanustre is permitted to offer testimony regarding causation and comparing Thomas's injuries to other dog bite injuries that he has seen. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/9/2012. (JD)
|
|
Filing
62
ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISMISS - For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 31 ) is GRANTED with respect to Thomas' claims that are being brought under the Indiana Constitution. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to all other claims. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/28/2011. (JD)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER denying pltf's 34 Motion to Strike defts' partial motion to dismiss (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/20/2010. (SWM)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: THOMAS v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 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.
