WELCH v. SUPERINTENDENT

WELCH v. SUPERINTENDENT

Plaintiff:	DEMITRIUS L. WELCH
Defendant:	SUPERINTENDENT
Case Number:	1:2015cv00827
Filed:	May 26, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	William T. Lawrence
Presiding Judge:	Debra McVicker Lynch
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
June 1, 2015	Filing 4 ENTRY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. He is assessed an initial partial filing fee of One Dollar and Fifty Cents ($1.50). He has through July 1, 2015, to pay this sum to t he clerk. The claim against the Superintendent of the New Castle Correctional Facility is dismissed, because he is not alleged to have had personal involvement in the alleged harassment of Welch. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cl aim. Welch shall have through July 1, 2015, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without at least an opportunity to amend o r to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant's case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.") SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/1/2015. Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 1, 2015

Filing 4 ENTRY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. He is assessed an initial partial filing fee of One Dollar and Fifty Cents ($1.50). He has through July 1, 2015, to pay this sum to t he clerk. The claim against the Superintendent of the New Castle Correctional Facility is dismissed, because he is not alleged to have had personal involvement in the alleged harassment of Welch. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cl aim. Welch shall have through July 1, 2015, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without at least an opportunity to amend o r to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant's case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.") SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/1/2015. Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

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: WELCH v. SUPERINTENDENT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: SUPERINTENDENT
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 ]
Plaintiff: DEMITRIUS L. WELCH
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?