TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al
| JOSEPH A. TAYLOR |
| DR. MICHAEL MITCHEFF, PHARMACORR, ROSE VAISVILAS, DR. WILLIAM H. WOLFE, M.D., CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES and JOHN/JANE DOES HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS |
| 1:2011cv01436 |
| October 27, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 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
103
ENTRY - The motions for appointment of counsel [dkt. 100 and dkt. 102 ] are denied as having been filed in the wrong forum. The plaintiff's request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt. 101 ] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that he is ineligible for this statute because of having acquired three or more "strikes" through having litigation to which he was a party in a federal court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or as frivolous. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/20/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 97 Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 59(e). Because Taylor has not presented any newly discovered evidence or demonstrated that the Court made a m anifest error of law, the Court DENIES his Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Dkt. 97.] The Court recently received a request from Taylor for a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. [Dkt. 98.] The Court GRANTS that request and directs the Clerk to enclose a copy of the docket sheet when it mails this entry to Taylor (See Order for additional information). Copy to Plaintiff via U S Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/10/2013. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER - The Court DENIES Taylor's motion for evidentiary hearing, [dkt. 80 ], because there are no material facts in dispute. To the extent he requests the Court to appoint him a medical expert, [id. at 5], that request is also DENIED, see Brown v. United States, 74 F. App'x 611, 614-15 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that "no civil litigant, even an indigent one, has a legal right to [a courtappointed medical expert]"). The Court GRANTS the Defendants' motion f or summary judgment on Taylor's Eighth Amendment claim. [Dkt. 68 .] In light of that decision, Taylor's motion for preliminary injunction, [dkt. 82 ], and emergency motion for a ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction, [dkt . 91 ], are DENIED AS MOOT. To the extent Taylor asserts any state law claims against any of the Defendants, the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Judgment shall issue accordingly . The Clerk is directed to enclose a copy of the docket sheet for this matter when this entry is mailed to Taylor, pursuant to his request. [Dkt. 92 .]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/30/2013. (copies to Plaintiff via US Mail as directed) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER denying 83 Plaintiff's Motion - The plaintiff's motion for recusal and plaintiff's motion to reconsider [dkt. 83 ] is DENIED. This entry resolves all issues raised in dkt. 83. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/16/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion To Alter - The request for reconsideration 63 is denied, because the court properly screened the operative pleading and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has been shown. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/10/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
35
ENTRY and NOTICE - Joseph Taylor shall have through August 2, 2012, in which to clarify the equivocal notice of dismissal he had filed on May 11, 2012. Specifically, in doing so Taylor shall either file an unequivocal notice of dismissal or report that he seeks to proceed in the matter. If Taylor fails to proceed as directed above, the court may dismiss the action, if appropriate, without further notice to him. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/18/2012. Copy Mailed to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.(JD)
|
|
Filing
30
ENTRY - The plaintiff has not shown that the court erred in its analysis or conclusion referred to above. Accordingly, his motion for Rule 59 new trial or motion to alter or amend 29 is denied. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/16/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
28
ENTRY - The plaintiff's 26 second motion for court appointed attorney has been considered. The plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel 26 is denied. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/4/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
27
ENTRY denying 25 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration - The plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider its ruling denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff's motion to reconsider 25 is denied. (SEE ENTRY). (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/7/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
24
ENTRY Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction - The plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 23 is DENIED. (SEE ENTRY). (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/9/2012. (JKS)
|
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.
