RHODES v. STATE OF INDIANA

RHODES v. STATE OF INDIANA

Plaintiff:	TRACEY RHODES
Defendant:	STATE OF INDIANA
Case Number:	1:2013cv00165
Filed:	January 30, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Sarah Evans Barker
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Both

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 6, 2014	Filing 95 The Kokomo defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt 57 ] is therefore granted. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. The Kokomo defendants' motion for protective order [dkt 69 ] is denied as moot. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/6/2014. (MGG)
March 4, 2014	Filing 94 ORDER granting Ali's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Rhodes' motion for summary judgment as to claims against Ali, which must be considered separately, (dkt 81 ) is denied because as to such claims Rhodes has failed to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to his claims against Ali. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (S.O.). Copy mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/4/2014. (MAC)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 6, 2014

Filing 95 The Kokomo defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt 57 ] is therefore granted. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. The Kokomo defendants' motion for protective order [dkt 69 ] is denied as moot. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/6/2014. (MGG)

March 4, 2014

Filing 94 ORDER granting Ali's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Rhodes' motion for summary judgment as to claims against Ali, which must be considered separately, (dkt 81 ) is denied because as to such claims Rhodes has failed to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to his claims against Ali. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (S.O.). Copy mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/4/2014. (MAC)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: RHODES v. STATE OF INDIANA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: TRACEY RHODES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA
Represented By:	Corinne T.W. Gilchrist
Represented By:	Grant E. Helms
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?