SHANNON v. SHANNON et al
| MARK A. SHANNON |
| PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and DIONE SHANNON |
| 1:2012cv01107 |
| August 10, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
56
ENTRY ON RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS - The amended complaint contains claims that are neither actionable nor plausible, 43 Defendant Progressive's Motion to Dismiss, or judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) will be GRAN TED. Mr. Shannon's claims against Progressive are DISMISSED. This ruling does not resolve the claim against the remaining party, therefore final judgment will not issue at this time. **SEE ENTRY** Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/11/2014. (MGG) Modified on 9/12/2014 (MGG).
|
|
Filing
5
ENTRY - Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The complaint appears to assert only state law claims against non-diverse parties. The plaintiff shall have through September 24, 2012, in which to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/24/2012. 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.
