SUTTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| VARNADOR SUTTON |
| WINFIELD ONG and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2012cv00531 |
| April 23, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
20
ENTRY - Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Reconsideration, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is DENIED. The amended complaint filed on September 13, 2012, is of no effect. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/19/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)
|
|
Filing
16
ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action - Sutton has responded, but his response falls short, and for the reasons referenced in the preceding paragraph this action is dismissed, because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/4/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)
|
|
Filing
5
ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - Plaintiff shall have through July 18, 2012, in which to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/26/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)
|
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.
