WOODRING v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
| BRIAN N. WOODRING |
| DUANE ALSIP, ROBERT BUGHER, ANDREW COLE, COMMISSIONER INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY, MARK DODD, KARL DOWNEY, PATTY GUFFEY, CRAIG HANKS, SHIRLEY HARTMAN, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WENDY KNIGHT, DAVID LIEBEL, PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NEIL POTTER, JENNIFER RINEHART, WAYNE SCAIFE, DAVID SMITH, L.A. VAN NATTA, JAMES WYNN and DUSHAN ZATECKY |
| 1:2014cv00165 |
| February 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
119
ENTRY Discussing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - The 90 motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Superintendent Knight and Jack Hendrix are voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal R ules of Civil Procedure. The clerk is directed to terminate these individuals as defendants on the docket. Defendants Chaplain Smith and Robert Bugher are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law because there is no evidence to suppor t a claim that they retaliated against Mr. Woodring by transferring him to Pendleton. The clerk is directed to terminate these individuals as defendants on the docket. Mr. David Liebel's motion for summary judgment is denied because there are material facts in dispute, specifically whether a price been attached to Mr. Woodring's protected speech. Herron, 820 F.3d at 863. The retaliation claim against Mr. Liebel shall be resolved through settlement or trial. This action shall be se t for a settlement conference with the magistrate judge. The Court will attempt to recruit counsel to represent the plaintiff at settlement and/or at trial. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER REGARDING DEFENSE OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. Based on the evidence presented, material facts in dispute exist and the defendants' motion for summary judgment 42 is DENIED. The defendants shall have through Decemb er 22, 2014, in which to report whether they withdraw the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies or whether they request an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes noted above. (SEE ORDER). Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/9/2014. (BGT)
|
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.
