ROWE v. MIZE et al
| DAVID BARR, LT BROOKS, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE 1, OFFICER JOHN DOE 3, MR. BRUCE HELMING, SAMANTHA MADDOX, SUPT. BRETT MIZE, MIKE RAINES and THOMAS RICHARDSON |
| 1:2010cv00362 |
| March 26, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Larry J. McKinney |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- 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
238
ORDER re 222 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - For the purposes of this motion, the evidence has been viewed in the light most favorable to Rowe, the non-movant. Summary judgment is granted in favor of David Barr because no reaso nable jury could conclude that he was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious injury from members of the Gangster Disciples. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/11/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
186
ORDER denying 179 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/13/2012. Copy via US Mail to plaintiff. (cc: USCA re: CA #12-2186.) (TMA)
|
|
Filing
148
Entry Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction - The plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 110 and his motion for a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction 112 are each denied. (**SEE ENTRY**). (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/5/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
107
ENTRY Discussing Affirmative Defense of Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the court finds that the defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof. Their affirmative defense that Rowe failed to comply with the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA prior to filing this action is therefore rejected. Accordingly, the affirmative defense discussed herein is rejected and the case will proceed. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/20/2011. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
22
ENTRY - The plaintiff's motion (dkt 21 ) is denied. Request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 20 ) is denied as unnecessary for the present. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 6/1/2010. (TRG)
|
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.
