BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al
Plaintiff: MARK A. BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN
Defendant: MARK A. BROWN, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, KATHLEEN L. DEPEW, RICHARD HITE, MARION COUNTY and POLICE MERIT BOARD
Case Number: 1:2015cv00786
Filed: May 19, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 97 ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 52). Brooks' Motion to Strike and Motion for Leave to File Amended Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED (Filing No. 55). All of Brooks' federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for violation of Ind. Code § 35-38-9-10, which provides injunct ive relief for employment decisions that are impermissibly made based on sealed criminal convictions. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed without prejudice. Because the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Brooks' sole-remaining state law claim, the Court also DENIES as moot Brooks' Rule 72 Objection (Filing No. 87), Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 78.), Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Filing No. 91), and his Motion to Extend the Parties' CMP Deadline (Filing No. 95). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/09/2016. (JLS) Modified on 6/10/2016 (JLS).
March 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR HEARING - Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is thus premature. This procedural defect additionally prevents the court from issuing a default judgment. For these reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment and his Motion and Request for Hearing (Docket 63) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/30/2016. (JLS)
November 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ENTRY Severing Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - All claims against Officer Mitchell are dismissed without prejudice. Officer Mitchell is terminated as a defendant in this action. The defendants proceeding in this action have appeared by counsel and shall have through December 22, 2015, in which to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint filed November 10, 2015. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/19/2015. (JLS)
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: BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MARK A. BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN
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: MARK A. BROWN
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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: CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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: KATHLEEN L. DEPEW
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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: RICHARD HITE
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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: MARION COUNTY
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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: POLICE MERIT BOARD
Represented By: Daniel Bowman
Represented By: Amanda J. Dinges
Represented By: Lynne Denise Hammer
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?