GOUDY v. CUMMINGS et al
| WALTER GOUDY |
| CITY OF ANDERSON, RODNEY J. CUMMINGS and STEVE NAPIER |
| THE STATE OF INDIANA |
| 1:2012cv00161 |
| February 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| 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
429
ORDER - Any relevance relating to their continued belief in Plaintiff's guilt is greatly outweighed by the potential prejudice of such testimony and risk of jury confusion. Accordingly, we GRANT Plaintiff's 412 motion in limine to bar the live testimony of Ms. Barclay and Mr. Nunn. For these reasons, we DENY Plaintiff's 414 motion to reconsider our ruling excluding Dr. Wells's testimony. Defendants' expert is also excluded since he was expected to respond to D r. Wells's testimony. We therefore DENY Plaintiff's 415 motion to reconsider our ruling prohibiting the suggestive identification claim from being asserted by Plaintiff as an independent basis for liability. The limited damages eviden ce ameliorates any potential prejudice and can be further mitigated through jury instructions. For these reasons, Defendants' 358 motion to bifurcate is DENIED. Plaintiff does not object to categories 1-5 and 7. Accordingly, Defendant Cummi ng's 372 motion in limine is GRANTED as to these issues. Plaintiff objects to Defendant Cummings's request that Plaintiff be barred from using a "Golden Rule" argument asking the jurors to place themselves in Plaintiff's shoes. This type of argument "is universally recognized as improper because it encourages the jury to depart from [] neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence." Accordingly, Defendant Cummings's motion in limine is GRANTED as to this issue as well. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 11/8/2019. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
409
ENTRY ON CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 - City Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Mr. Lee will not be permitted to testify in person to these issues and DENIED IN PART as to Defendants' ; request to exclude all references to the fact and content of Mr. Lee's confession and subsequent conviction. Stated otherwise, Plaintiff will be permitted to introduce evidence establishing the fact and content of Mr. Lee's confession as well as the fact of his conviction for murder and attempted murder as the second shooter, but he may not introduce such evidence through the direct testimony of Mr. Lee. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 10/18/2019.(LDH)
|
|
Filing
380
ORDER denying 344 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 10/3/2019. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
340
ORDER granting Defendant' 335 Renewed Motion for Leave to Submit New Expert Report. See Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/5/2019. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
315
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - This cause is now before the Court on the Revised Attorney Fee Petition Docket No. 275 , filed by Plaintiff on May 10, 2017. This Court previously held that Plaintiff was entitled to monetary sanctions against Defendants& #039; counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §. The parties filed a flurry of motions following Plaintiff's submission of his revised attorney fee petition. These motions can be addressed summarily as follows: Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Dkt. 282 is DENIED. Although Plaintiff's petition was filed one day beyond the deadline given by the Court, we find that it was filed in good faith and was not intentionally filed in violation of the deadline, and therefore that the filing constitutes excusable neglect and should not be stricken. Plaintiff's Motions to File a Sur-Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike Dkt. 291 and for Leave to File Fee Petition Response and E xhibit Lists Instanter, Nunc Pro Tunc to May 10, 2017 Dkt. 283 are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants' Amended Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Revised Petition for Attorneys' Fees Dkt. 299 is GRANTE D and Defendants' original Motion to File Surreply Dkt. 296 is DENIED AS MOOT. We conclude that $50,000 in attorneys' fees and $1,283.41 in costs is an appropriate amount for defense counsels' sanctionable conduct. Defense counsel are held jointly and severally liable for this payment. Final judgment shall now issue in this cause. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/4/2017. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
312
ORDER - Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. Final judgment shall be entered following the Court's resolution of the remaining sanctions issues. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/29/2017. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
260
ORDER granting in part 227 Third Motion for Sanctions - Plaintiff's Third Motion for Sanctions and Supplemental Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED in PART. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide within twenty-one (21) days of the date of th is Entry an itemization of additional expenditures incurred by him in connection with the filing of the Third Motions for Sanctions and the Supplemental Motion for Sanctions. The itemization should include any costs incurred in connection with the additional depositions necessitated by defense counsels' failures. Following the receipt of such submission, the Court will determine the amount of an appropriate monetary sanction. This collateral skirmish having now been resolved, the parti es should return their attentions to the underlying merits of this case. Counsel are hereby directed to schedule an immediate status conference and case management plan with the Magistrate Judge to get their pretrial preparations back on track and moving towards a final resolution of this litigation. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/22/2017. (JD)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER - Mr. Goudy's 84 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Mr. Goudy is entitled to pursue his state cause of action for malicious prosecution against the City Defendants. However, we decline to reconsider our prior order with regard to the malicious prosecution claim brought against Defendant Cummings in his prosecutorial capacity; that claim is DISMISSED. The case will proceed accordingly. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/21/2014. (JD)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Order granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The case will proceed accordingly. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/30/2013. (CBU)
|
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.
